Revision as of 08:11, 18 December 2009

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

Active alerts

User:65.41.234.238 and Saturday Night Live

• A few days ago, I posted on the Saturday Night Live talk page that the articles for each season of Saturday Night Live needed to be cleaned up because they all had "notes" or "remarks" sections, which were mostly (or completely) unsourced and unsorted trivia. The article List of Saturday Night Live episodes used to look like that itself, but the remarks section was removed following this discussion. Because of this, I went ahead and deleted the notes from Saturday Night Live (season 35) (explaining why I did so in the edit summary), after which they were reverted simply because all the other season articles were formatted in that manner.

User:Mainly.generic started a discussion about this situation, and I once again explained why I deleted the notes, no matter how interesting they might have been. At first I was in a slight disagreement with User: 71.77.17.46 about the matter but after s/he backed off, User talk:65.41.234.238 came out of nowhere and started arguing to the point that I now can’t tell if s/he is against removing the notes or against me personally. Mainly.generic then came up with a very good proposal about how we can possibly improve the articles, and after I commented on it, 65.41.234.238 completely and unnecessarily picked it apart, and as I said before, it seems like s/he is doing so because it has something to do with me; it doesn’t even seem to be about the articles anymore.

To say that 65.41.234.238’s behavior is incivil would be an understatement. Maybe some users think I’m reading too much into this, but I don’t. Thoughts? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note on 65.41.234.238’s talk page about this discussion, informing involved parties should be done when starting an alert here.

Anybody is allowed to come along and discuss changes on the talk page and previous consensus can be changed. In fact changing an article is often a good way of bringing in more people to discuss a change. Looking at the history I believe 65.41.234.238 has acted civilly and I would question why you have to talk about another editor as having a tantrum when they disagree with you. There was some lack of assume good faith by 65.41.234.238 in the bit about wanting a separate article for each episode but I think you had contributed to a lack of respect and trust by then. I think it would be better to concentrate on the subject and as far as possible and try avoiding commenting on other editors. Dmcq (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

COMP did notify the anon, you were looking at their "user page" Dmcq, not their talk page. I have tagged User:65.41.234.238 for deletion. Spitfire 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how I got there? that was very stupid of me, thanks, added a strikeout above, sorry. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed a reference in another editor's text in case anyone else falls over this. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me the personalization started here ] with COMPFUNK2/American Metrosexual's comment. Gerardw (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on the subject is what I've been trying to do. And Dmcq, I don't understand why you think I had a lack of trust -- I mean, I literally don't understand what you mean. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

did you even bother to read is not commenting on the subject, it's implying another another editor is lazy or something else not real positive. Gerardw (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after seeing this comment, I got suspicious as to why the only users that seem to be challenging what I say are anonymous IPs, and after doing a whois check, I discovered that this new IP is coming from the exact same location as the original IP that disagreed with me, and the new IP just happened to start editing SNL-related articles in question after the 71 IP stopped. Is there some sockpuppetry or SPA nonsense going on? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If they were the same person why would it make any difference to your arguments? Have the two IPs acted in suppport of each other on a proposal or something like that? I haven't seen any evidence of improper conduct even if they were the same person. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you take it to WP:SPI if that's your suspicion. WQA is for outstanding civility matters, of which I see very little evidence. Kind regards, Spitfire 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I have never claimed that 71.77.17.46 and 75.178.178.212 are different editors, and if American Metrosexual disagrees with that he should show us the diffs in which I claimed to be two different editors. My IP changes sometimes beyond my control. I fully acknowledge that I have used two IPs because I had no choice. What I do not acknowledge is some personal issue with American Metrosexual; he seems to not want anyone to challenge his ideas and takes personal offense when they do so. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that's not what I'm doing? If I am taking any personal offense, like I stated before, it's because I feel I am being attacked, not my idea (there is a difference). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack, I respectfully suggest that you respond to the anon's comments on the level which they were made; within a content dispute, rather than treating them like personal attacks, which they are not. The anon probably had no intention of attacking you. kind regards, Spitfire 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I get a message from Metro telling me I am being discussed here. Could someone please explain why Metro is trying to intimidate everyone who disagrees with him. This doesn't make any sense. And by the way, before Metro accuses me of sockpuppetry, let me point out that I am the same user as anon 65.41.234.238. My IP address changes sometimes when I restart my modem. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's really what you think, then you missed this entire discussion. And Gerardw, did you not see that the IP said something to me first?

I think it's time for me to take a wikibreak because it's extremely unfair for people to treat me like I'm acting in bad faith and refusing to even consider that I might be making a valid point. All I'm trying to do is help. (And why are you always against me, Spitfire?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against you on principal. I've very clearly explained to you the reason why I disagree with you, and its not because I make a point to oppose you on everything. I'm sure that you aren't acting in bad faith, however, just because your intent isn't malicious doesn't automatically make you correct. Kind regards, Spitfire 17:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, the linked discussion was over half a year ago, and I didn't specifically come to this discussion because you were involved, but have been active in WQA for the last couple of weeks. Furthermore, my comments on this matter were made from a neutral point of view, and I haven't been holding any past matters against you, nor will. I hope you can return the favour and not hold them against me. Kind regards, Spitfire 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I see where one 65.41.234.238 23:37 backed up 71.77.17.46 but it doesn't seem a point where people would bother with sockpuppeting.

As to being personal could you point to where the IP said something to you first? I will go through the discussions thee and say where I thought they started becoming personal:

• With 71.77.17.46 22:08, 5 December 2009 . IP says "and your argument is lame." and says why they think that. You come back "did you even bother to read WP:TRIV?" which is a very serious escalation. Later on you have things like "Sneaking it into the individual season articles is the same thing. (BTW, it appears that the only person that seems to disagree with this is you.)" with no provocation at all that I can spot. When they respond complaining "What's your point? That there is a consensus in favor of removing notes sections when two people favor it? Or that your opinion is more important than mine?" you say "Okay, I think you need to calm down" and "You seem to be having a tantrum" which very definitely turns the whoile business personal.

• With . 65.41.234.238 23:37, 6 December 2009 . They start with "I agree with 71.77 in the respect that while I agree with Compfunk in part to clean up the notes, we shouldn't get rid of all the notes." then "Can we come to an agreement that will be agreeable on both parts? (combining our two points of view?". You respond with "My point was simple; the notes were trivia. I used the AfD link above to easily explain why they were deleted before (by an admin, remember) and then later by me, but it seems like the 71 IP doesn't get it because s/he doesn't want to get it." They respond with "Metro, 71 IP doesn't want to get it?? It's you who doesn't want to answer his question. How is listing the songs peformed by a musical guest "random", "disorganized" "trivia"? The question has been asked several times. And, by the way, you just made another personal attack". To which you respond "Oh, my God, will y'all stop?". And it rapidly degenerates from there to where you say "I never said listing musical guests was random. And by the way, information is supposed to be acceptable by Misplaced Pages guidelines, not yours. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL because you're getting worked up over nothing." That is about the point where I would say you have lost respect and trust of 65.41.234.238.

Overall I think you would be much better off as I said before just trying harder to concentrate on the points about the article. And Misplaced Pages isn't that important. If you see yourself about to write to somebody asking them to cool down, instead delete that sentence and go and have a cup of coffee, try forcing a smile or whatever it is you do to think pretty thoughts. If they aren't outright vandals they're probably trying to do something useful. In the balance of things one negative comment costs at least three and possibly more positive ones by my reckoning, so try and find something positive to say if anything. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to come to Metrosexual's defence. All throughout this process I've tried to keep things civil, but goddamn, it's getting hard. Tensions started when Metro edited Saturday Night Live (season 35), removing the show notes. This came at odds with existing editors, as it was a complete 180 compared to existing processes. A problem inherent with all Saturday Night Live articles is a major excess of trivia (on the Saturday Night Live cast page we have had people add the 'tallest castmembers'. Why?!). Metro tried to remove this fluff (which I myself have been working hard on, but every time I remove something, ten people will be waiting in live to add it back), and people got mad at time. I believe anon was still harboring a grudge over this, and chose to get extremely picky over the whole matter.

I doubt we'll come to a resolution anytime soon. I've proposed the creation of WikiProject Saturday Night Live, which I hope with the inclusion of an experience admin as a project member, we may finally come to some sort of an understanding.Mainly.generic (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there some general project or manual of style about TV series like this and what should go in? I didn't see one at the side of WP:TRIVIA which would be the overall guide but I saw a few similar areas. I'd have thought the main criterion would be WP:Verifiability, has the trivia been mentioned in a secondary source as something interesting? Ask people for citations and that should get rid of most of the trivia I'd have thought. Deleting trivia wholescale if there might be something reasonable in it seems to be discouraged by WP:TRIVIA though. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainly.generic's accusations of "harboring a grudge" (a false accusation in my case, and a presumptuous assumption in all cases) in no way mitigates or justifies Metro's attempts to intimidate editors who disagree with him and Metro's own false accusations of personal attacks and sockpuppetry. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Slinging mud on this page does nothing to resolve the problems. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Personal Attacks by User:BilCat

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

User:BilCat is continuously calling me a vandal: , ,

When I asked him to stop that, he accused me of another blockable offense, again without evidence:

Please ask him to stop. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notify him, he just got his /Talk semiprotected. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to note I have told BilCat, and also note this is related to Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Bogus_PA_warning_from_User:MBK004. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the supplied diffs it is apparent that User:BilCat has acted entirely appropriately and has no case to answer. If anyone is guilty of incivility it is the 91.55.204.136 with his edit summary here. - Nick Thorne 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok to call another editor vandal if I don't understand his actions? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll note that was in response to the previous edit summary calling his edit "vandalism" (although it was a legitimate edit). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, calling legitimate edits vandalism, as BilCat did, is uncool. As was this ]. So both editors could be more polite. Gerardw (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And the ANI discussion has reached the point of suggesting mutual apologies and going on from there; the proponent would like to see uninvolved agreement. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For instance, this is a good way to go forward. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, mutuality would suggest that BilCat responds and shows at least a glimpse of understanding. Currently, he reacts with either reverts or personal attacks to my posts and does his best to avoid a discussion with me (spreading the topic all over the place in the process). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What's been shown here might be incivil by BilCat, are NOT personal attacks. So please stop mis-characterizing things. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PA lists among the things considered to be a personal attack: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. You can even be blocked for vandalism, so in my book it's worse than calling someone "idiot" or something similar. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but unexplained, unsourced and undiscussed anonymous edits are often indistinguishable from vandalism. If you don't want to be called a vandal, then don't edit like one. It is time you dropped the stick. - Nick Thorne 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Especially if you don't know jack about the article in question. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony in your aggressive postng style in a thread started by you to complain about another editor's behaviour? People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. - Nick Thorne 03:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the article, BilCat didn't. I've just seen the movie before fixing its article, BilCat don't know jack about it. I'm aware that IPs are treated badly here, that shouldn't stop you to acknowledge the simple fact that I wanted to improve the article and BilCat tried to stop me. (Quite sucessfully in the case of the carriers' articles, I might add. The version that BilCat's expert confirmed to be wrong is still in place.) --91.55.230.143 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dear IP editor, please knock it off now or you might find yourself getting the short end of the stick later for your continued whining here. It's time to drop the stick now and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Dave 07:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what? To recap: 1. I report an uncivility. 2. One editor disagrees, one is not aware of current WP:PA, two at least see some merit. 3. The uncivil editor never even shows up. Now you come along and tell me to drop the stick? Please explain the procedure I should've rather followed. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been fixed, BilCat has been told characterizing the edits as vandalism was uncool -- and you've been asked to drop the stick. The procedure you should follow now is to stop with the uncivil characterizations of other editors. e.g. don't know jack. and resume improving Misplaced Pages. Gerardw (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW: His attacks are continuing. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I have no idea about the discussed article or its edits. Just an observation: this thread is focusing on personal qualities which nobody can possibly know. We are here to build an encyclopedia, aren't we. Why don't we get back to working on that instead of talking about it. In other words, it is the article content rather than "who knows what" that should be discussed and improved, I believe. Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:

• Break some policy (NPA and AGF seem to be the most popular).
• Watch that you are reported somwhere in WP:Dispute resolution.
• Ignore it.
• Watch other editors attack the reporter.
• Keep quiet.
• Watch other editors rush to protect dead horses.
• Carry on.

In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.

The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well 91.55, this post demonstrates excactly why you seem to be having trouble with other editors on Misplaced Pages. You assume a (totally unsupported) position of greater knowledge and moral superiority over other editors and then when they do not bow down to your wisdom you become aggressive. You ascribe motives to others that you cannot possibly know anything about and then deign to hand out advice that you might well take yourself. It is well and truly time for you to climb down from your high horse. - Nick Thorne 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is beating a dead horse now? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Let me see. I've made four posts in this thread before this one. You've made ten. What do you think? I'm done with you, I think Bill was right - I'm bailing out WP:DNFT. - Nick Thorne 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposer is putting similar comments about admins on the WP:ANI page so I think we can leave them to deal with any problem and close this here as being dealt with in another forum. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Flower Travellin Problems - personal attacks, edit wars, POV

Hi - I'm having some issues with a user - and I've been unable to deal with them in the past, so hoped someone else would lend a neutral POV to this. Their contributions seem to be sort of a mixed bag.

(I am also trying to be retired but someone pointed this out to me):

• Some questionable changes :
• Some fine changes:
• Some odd removals of references:
• and some blatant personal attacks and removals of huge chunks of pages (that I was not the only contributor to):

In summary the user seems to want to remove anything but some strange arbitraty stuff they agree with, and want to replace all sources with references to the band's official site.

I have tried to discuss this with the user before, and was told by them not to talk to them again . They refuse to participate in talk pages, and they refuse to use their account ever since they were blocked (although they are not currently blocked)… The user has also (under other IPs) edit warred with others and myself , along with personal attacks and foul language …

I'm not sure how to approach this, didn't want to dig up everything (there were other edit wars I wasn't involved in but they're easy to find) and I really don't want to get involved anymore, but I hope someone else cares enough to get involved. I'm not sure if/when I'll check back here, so feel free to do whatever seems best. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling somebody a vandal is a personal attack and quite unacceptablke. I think though this is probably more a content dispute or may even require admin action because of the way the bands own site is being used instead of secondary sources. Perhaps best would be if you could get a WP:Third opinion or better WP:Request for comments Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance

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

I don't seem to be able to properly communicate the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP issues regarding User:98.197.181.195's edits to League City, Texas. Perhaps I'm wrong and would appreciate another editor's review and assessment. Thank you, Postoak (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war issue, not wikiquette, referred to AN board. Gerardw (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sdsds - Assuming bad faith

Hi all. With no real place to turn to (I don't feel this is an issue appropriate for anything drastic like WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM), I'd appreciate it if there could be some attention from kind individuals in a discussion between User:Sdsds. The issue arose when I nominated one of his articles for deletion, posted at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Galaxy_Express_Corporation. The comment left there by him led me to post this request to his talk page that he tries to assume good faith in that I am simply trying to benefit the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. This appears to have only escalated things, now at my talk page where he chooses to call me out as a "deletionist" despite the fact that this is a very minimal portion of my work, and claiming that I am somehow harming the Misplaced Pages project by trying to raise Misplaced Pages quality. If anyone could offer advice on how to proceed or step in to ease tensions, that would be great. I'm not sure what else to do. Feel free to ask any questions if necessary. --Shirik (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack advice

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

A user has started an apparent RFC attack page on me: User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 This user has trolled, deleted my articles, aggressively reverted my edits, complained to admins, canvased other users to attack me and now seems to be planning a RFC attack. This user is compulsively attacking me without dealing with the substantive issues.

I am looking for advice and attack intervention. The user has called me "pointless", a "waste of time", "non-productive" and "incoherent" as if he owns the article's POV. He does not want to talk directly, ignores and then escalates issues, without addressing the content or the issues raised by me and others on talk pages.

This user has a history of abusive admin powers (which were revoked), having previously blocked harmless editors. There is a litany of editors scraped by this users past abuses. Other editors have written critical articles on this users behavior.

I can create an long Diff list of RFC issues on this user's behavior, but that would not be appropriate at this junction. I am not completely innocent, I confess a few transgressions -- which unlike this aggressive user -- I can acknowledge and move on. I've taken a step back from our NPOV dispute for now. Doing my best to proceed with peaceful bold, revert, discuss cycles (including measurements). Any further advice will be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is related to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#The irony of "RV_STOP_EDIT_WARRING!!!" set up after ZuluPapa5 put in a comment STOP THE TAG WAR NOW, SEE TALK!!! on the article and reverted it. The article referenced on that 'attack page' was deleted practically unanimously. My feeling is there's enough warring and admins and things on that talk page without more people being involved.

I searched for those personal attack terms on the talk page. The 'pointless', 'waste of time' and 'nonproductive' were not specific. However the 'incoherent' was personal, it occurred in Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #7. IT would be better to just say they didn't understand the proposal or be more specific about its problems rather than characterize the proposer. Have you put a message on the other editors talk page about this discussion here? Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The issues are focused in that article but cover a few others too. The ed told me to stay off his page and he would accept all warnings. Feel free to notify the ed. My talk page has not been changed. He removes anything regarding his behavior from his talk page.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like you were complaining yesterday on WP:ANI about William_M._Connolley on a related matter, so you have complained to admins too. What is that about canvassing other editors to attack you? I'll leave a note but editors ar entitled to remove practically anything from their talk pages. If they say they don't want to talk to you there you should respect tht but a dispassionate statement about a discussion on WQA should be okay. I'll go and put a message there anyway though. Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of ZP5's complaint, WMC has a long history of removing talk page comments (article talk page), edit warring, and incivility. I will provide detail here if requested, though it may take a bit of time as I'm pretty busy at the moment. ATren (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he can remove his own article talk comments to show he retracts a comment but if it has been in for more than a short time he should strike them through or otherwise make it explicit as others may have read it. Are you saying he removes other people's comments? That is a more serious matter and should only be done for clearly personal attacks, see WP:RPA and of course one can remove clear vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's others' comments, and in most cases they don't contain PAs, at least not by the standard WMC has set for himself (e.g. not any worse than "incoherent", "waste of time", etc). I've seen it maybe a dozen times over the last few months. I will try to collect diffs and post them, but as I said, I am busy in real life so I may not get to it right away. ATren (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather ironic to begin a WA with This user has trolled..., no? User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is not an attack page - try reading it. It is a draft for an RFC, or rather the first notes towards one William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the business about saying the editor was 'Incoherent, as usual'? Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Hipocrite removed another personal attack by you 'Declare ZP5 a waste of time and ban him from this article'. Sorry ZP5 for resurrecting that but iut seems germane here that another editor had to clean up the text rather than WMC. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the important thing is that the talk page, which is intended for the discussion of the article content, no longer contains that attack. The identity of the person removing it doesn't color the action. I encourage all editors to do likewise when talk pages become venues for personal attacks. --TS 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole attack thing has become ridiculous. This discussion started with ZP5's claim that User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is a personal attack. This is obviously rubbish. Close this discussion and stop this crazy mudslinging that is spreading over wikipedia and wasting people's time. Polargeo (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That was dismissed early on here. The question is about those personal attacks, can something be done about getting a more civil attitude or do you think they are an acceptable way to refer to a fellow editor? Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq. I know you mean well but ZP5 has been wasting a lot of people's time and stating so should not be dealt with as a personal attack any longer but an honest and constructive assessment of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Would "a waste of time is wasting people's time" be appropriate, or is that also too uncivil? WMC's choice of words may be less than ideal, but quite frankly, the sentiment behind them seems pretty much on target. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If folks don't want to invest productive time here, please refrain, and discontinue the the personal attacks on this page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Without providing the extensive list of diffs (please just look at user contributions ZP5) you have been going around claiming WMC has been personally attacking you on numerous occasions, usually over him expressing extremely minor and justified opinions. This really is wasting a lot of people's time here. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's not an attack, it's a question as to whether people think that the wording is the problem, or the characterisation of your behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ZP5, don't you know WMC is allowed to say things which would get someone like you banned? ATren (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Inflammatory commentary does not help this situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither does pretending that a problem doesn't exist. ATren (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor does mischaracterising the issue. It is not that anyone is pretending that a problem does/doesn't exist - it is the simple fact that this WQA has outlived its usefulness and will not achieve any of the outcomes that are expected by either party. In such circumstances, the best thing to do is refer it to the more appropriate venue for presenting evidence and views on the matter - RfC/U. It would moot the primary concern expressed by the filing party also; there would be no "draft". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, please calm down.
  • The subject of this WQA is entitled to maintain a page on his userspace that drafts (or has notes) for filing an RfC/U. In fact, it is specifically encouraged that you collect evidence and draft your RfC before filing one. If WMC kept this page up for an unreasonable amount of time (as a matter of days/weeks rather than a matter of 48 hours), then it may warrant deletion (through the appropriate deletion venues), but that is not the case here as it has been barely 48-ish hours since it was created.
  • There were occasions where the subject's comments have been construed by some users as incivility that was directed personally at the filing party (ZP5) - but these seem to have been dealt with to the satisfaction of those users.
• This is resolved - any further issues would need to go through the next step in dispute resolution, namely RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I've started collecting evidence with respect to the side thread above (removing article talk comments) so I may open another report against WMC in the next few days.

I OBJECT - The attacks have not been resolved by the offender to my satisfaction. WMC could do better to explain himself before drafting an RFC. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening another thread would qualify as abusing the dispute resolution process. If comments warrant removal, use ANI or proceed to the next step in DR. As you do not agree with this being resolved, this is now closed as stuck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about the justification of opinions they should be phrased about the content and not about the person. 'I think going down that alley wouldn't be fruitful as we've been over it before in xyz' for instance is a comment about content rather than saying a person is a waste of time. WP:Civility is one of the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages and one should 'Participate in a respectful and considerate way.' This situation most definitely does not seem resolved to me. Whay has the stuck marker been put on? I will remove it till a good reply. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you replace the stuck mark. This WQA has clearly outlived its usefulness and the outcome that the filing party is seeking is not going to be achieved at this venue - in such circumstances where a party does not believe the issues are resolved, the dispute is marked as stuck and the parties are advised as to the next step(s) in DR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, please assume good faith here. A premature closure, without time for the offender to substantively respond, might be considered a form of escalation. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no offence per your original report. This is truely stuck. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave a moment for ZP5 or WMC to respond. Also if it is escaled I'd go to WP:ANI as RfC/U is not binding either so it can't do much more than here. If not then yes okay. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a lengthy comment on ZP5's talk page here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop feeding and encouraging this string of what is becoming harrassment by ZP5. The initial complaint is nonsense. He has gotten annoyed because editors are deleting his articles because they are extremely poor. This is not the place to deal with this issue. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Polargeo is wrong to close this without giving WMC time to respond and will put in my own comment at the top. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is wrong to close this before giving WMC time to respond. Escalating issues to arbitration when it might still be possible to solve them amicably is not reasonable dispute resolution. I would recommend WMC be blocked from climate issues for a while if there is arbitration, I would prefer an undertaking to moderate the language just deal with the issues not personalities instead. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is noted, but please do not mess up the chronology of this thread. The thread is not closed as such until discussion stops or is stopped via archive tabs so there is no rush to remove the tag that exists. If there is no change after 24 hours, it is likely to be ready to close accordingly. In other words, perhaps instead of adding discussion, you should make this viewpoint known to WMC directly on his talk page rather than expecting he will respond again. Moreover, nobody here has suggested arbitration except you and perhaps the filing party - it is entirely unhelpful to pretend that is the course of action suggested, when the course of action suggested was WP:RFC/U; a place where users make agreements over such issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it where you put it but I clearly associated it with the stuck marker and tghings do get archived here fairly quickly. It sounds to me that you believe WMC will ignore this WQA after his initial response. I am sorry about that if so. I will not inform WMC as I already said about this being started up and it's been less than a day since. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that much is clear. I don't understand your unwillingness. Oh well, I will ask WMC if he wishes to make any further comments - based on his response, there or here, I guess we'll know where we're at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I view it as not assuming good faith to work as if an editor will ignore a complaint about civility. Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how you characterise this as a case of ignoring a complaint as opposed to not responding further as there isn't a need to. WMC has already responded and has stated his view; some users are of the view that there is some issues with civility while others feel that the issues have been dealt with or don't exist or won't happen again. In other words, the first step to resolving a dispute is determining if there are civility issues - I don't see wide agreement on that issue. Moreover, issues can be resolved without explicit assurances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Different editors are entitled to see things differently. I have not said WMC would ignore this or would respond, each editor is responsible for their own actions. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm puzzled. We're all agreed (with the possible exception of ZP5) that the draft RFC page is OK. That was what the orignal complaint was about. If there are other complaints, can someone please state them succintly, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks. I'll repeat:

How about the business about saying the editor was 'Incoherent, as usual'?

I see Hipocrite removed another personal attack by you 'Declare ZP5 a waste of time and ban him from this article'. Sorry ZP5 for resurrecting that but iut seems germane here that another editor had to clean up the text rather than WMC.

I'll also repeat the advice I put in:

Whatever about the justification of opinions they should be phrased about the content and not about the person. 'I think going down that alley wouldn't be fruitful as we've been over it before in xyz' for instance is a comment about content rather than saying a person is a waste of time.

I would like to see some sort of commitment to sticking to the subject as in WP:NPA. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Restated in plain view: "I am looking for advice and attack intervention. The user has called me "pointless", a "waste of time", "non-productive" and "incoherent" as if 'he owns' the article's POV. He does not want to talk directly, ignores and then escalates issues, without addressing the content or the issues raised by me and others on talk pages." Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: ZP5 is incoherent and a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay then Ncmvocalist, you were right it is stuck. It is up to ZP5 to ignore this clear personal insult or else to escalate in the dispute resolution process unless an admin wants to do something different. Dmcq (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An insistence that editors only "comment on content, not contributors" is exactly wrong when an RfC/U is being dealt with. The RfC/U process is supposed to be entirely about the contributor/editor behavior, not about the content. We have content RfCs for questions of content; it appears that WMC is planning to open a question about editor behavior. A prohibition on talking about editor behavior is counterproductive in the RfC/U process; problems of editor behavior cannot be addressed if editors are not allowed to talk about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How about comment on "any" content (not "only"), please? The attacks seem to be void of the editor's objective context for me to addressed. As such, I am left to assume they reflect the attacker's behavior in the article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify: ZP5 is a waste of time on the GW articles (demonstrably so in the case of the two deleted articles he recently started). He may well be of value elsewhere; I haven't checked. He is often, not always, incoherent on the related talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is getting closer to something I can address. Which I have considered with specifically fair actions to those articles. I remain puzzled how to satisfy William M. Connolley with regards to Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. Which is where most of his PA originated. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of nothing that allows insults in RFC/U. It is entirely possible to discuss whether an editors contribution are non-constructive or disruptive by discussing what has happened, i.e. the issue rather than the person. Dmcq (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I to take it ZP5 that you are taking the view that the PAs are evidence of a problem that WMC was unable to express properly and you are therefore overlooking them in the hope of finding a remediable issue underneath? Dmcq (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like stuck is the outcome then, there is no more that can be done in this forum. I'm very sorry about that. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lee

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.

This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...

The most recent insults can be found here:

• reverting my good edits, which I thorougly explained in the Talk Page and was agreed by NeilN. In the summary he calls my edits "vandalism" and accuses me of starting another edit war
• Same thing. A unnecessary revert with insults like "vandalism and speculation"
• accusing me of starting an edit war, after I removed an external link that has no business in the article (link did not contain the information claimed in the article
• A revert by Peter Lee, calling it "crap done by Mario Roering", where it wasn't even my edit, but that of a person using the name TenChiJin
• Again saying in the summary "Undoing Mario Roering's vandalism", whereas it was a contrib of TenChiJin, not mine
• On NeilN's talk page he again accuses me of vandalism
• here he is not just insulting me, but also another Wikipedian, NeilN

And so on, and so on... (this list is just for the last 3-4 weeks but really, it is endless!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!)

And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...

I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Misplaced Pages (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked . Based on the historical record, I don't think we can do anything for you here and recommend to post on Gerardw (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, alright then. Thanks for the advice. Will take it up on WP:AN/I. MarioR 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to trouble ANI. I'll take this on. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(in response to the NWQA tag that originall read "extensive past history recommend WP:AN/I Gerardw (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)") Note:Extensive history? Please, its still personal attacks. No need to send it off to ANI. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's personal attacks. It's beyond what WQA traditionally is set up to do; historically WQA hasn't been monitored by admins. Gerardw (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly used to be, I guess they all stopped watching for the same reason I took it off my list for a while - it turned into a "block request whinefest" rather than actual requests for help. A lot of the incidents filed here a while ago were of the same pattern: Bait editor you're in a dispute with until they respond with something marginally uncivil. Run to WQA and demand a block. Get block. Make your desired edits, now unopposed and with no need to actually work with editors of other views. I got tired of it, I suppose others did as well. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:B-Machine

User:B-Machine posted a statement saying that African-American and White mixtures were the result of White rape of Blacks in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=African_American&diff=prev&oldid=331651390

I removed the detail about "rape" as the sources I looked at did not characterize the majority of the mixing as rape and stated that he needed a source that explicitly said that if he wanted to continue making that claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=African_American&diff=331726936&oldid=331651390

His subsequent communication with me has been uncivil:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=prev&oldid=331860609
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=prev&oldid=331860747
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=prev&oldid=331863347

While I am an administrator, I am an involved user and cannot directly deal with him in regards to this issue.

I would like for some other users to give him guidance. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

19:59 today: user made most recent personal attacks.

20:18 today: you warned the user about personal attacks.

20:28 today: WQA opened.

Can I suggest that we put this on hold in the hope that the user takes note of the warning about personal attacks? If they do not then would be happy to have the WQA continue, but as it is, I think that and discussion could result in the issue being drawn out rather than resolving it. Kind regards, Spitfire 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can put it on hold and see what happens. However I must add that I first warned him of personal attacks at 19:54, and he continued at 19:59 - 20:18 was my second warning. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's his general attitude to life, I can't see him having a long and productive career. Also, last time I checked, Mariah Carey's grandparents were married. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise that, would you like the WQA to go ahead? Spitfire 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Need independent help with a talkpage

A talk page, Talk:Crucifixion in art, is being enthusiastically discussed and modified by an online forum. That's led to a great number of talkpage comments from SPAs. That isn't terrible, but they border the line of discussing the article, discussing the individual (User:Tryptofish), and just shouting into the ether.

Tryptofish tried to boldly hide some of the discussions rather that outright remove them, but some of the usual IPs are undoing that effort. Can someone independent to the article take a look and see if the entries should be removed, archived, or simply left alone? tedder (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't see that it is too worrying for the moment. There might be a reasonable editor there you never know so if anything I'd go on don't bite the newcomers. The only worry I have about forums doing something is if they have some sort of agenda and so can be counted a meatpuppets but I don't think that's a real worry here. Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated hiding some text which had degenerated into a personal attack and put in a reminder about the purpose of talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking here, and just happened to stumble upon this. I want to thank tedder for raising the issue, and for all his help related to the page. I also thank Dmcq for coming to the talk page and helping, although I also note that some of the editors have reverted what Dmcq did. Let me suggest that impartial editors who read here consider keeping an eye on the talk page (ie, Talk:Crucifixion in art), and see what you think about what shows up there. In my opinion, administrators other than tedder have been too tentative about communicating (ie, at their user talk pages) with editors who make personal attacks, at least to explain to them what is or is not within policy, out of what I guess is fear of being bitey.

By way of background, it is useful to look at our page on 4chan. What I think can be described as a sister-site of that is very actively engaged in egging on its readers to come to Misplaced Pages for the general purpose of removing anime-related images that they find offensive, and, now, for the specific purpose of trolling and harassing me. When Dmcq invokes bite, that's perfectly understandable if you don't know what's going on, but please believe me that an awful lot of these are not simply new editors, but meatpuppets with a disruptive agenda. (P.S.: I just looked briefly at tedder's link. Remarkable how people who cannot seem to come up with a diff to support their allegations of my supposedly terrible editing have no problem posting diffs of my edits, as soon as I make them, on their external site.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Something Awful#Possible addition. I'm going to just drop the stick and WP:DENY at this point, but please note how editors are coming as meatpuppets from the site, with a clear COI of preventing any edit to the page that goes against a one-sided positive POV. Also, parroting of references to WP:SPADE at Talk:Crucifixion in art, and a registered editor who is making a career of going from talk page to talk page and rendering my user name as "Typofish". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the user doing the 'typofish' thing, do you have diffs, and have you warned them against changing talkpage comments? tedder (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it isn't going back and changing my signature, but, rather, just pointedly calling me that name. No I haven't warned them, as I fear any warning from me would just be gasoline on the fire, but it got discussed, not in hindsight in the best way, at Talk:Crucifixion, where it happened first: . Followed by disingenuous , and now . Preceded by a lot of stuff like this , and a somewhat interesting user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds like the normal SPA SA griefers. tedder (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenebrae

This editor has issues with my editing, and these matters can be discussed elsewhere. What I object to and would like to have Tenebrae spoken to about is his manner of communication. Irrespective of what he believes, comments in Edit Summaries should not name another editor or make derogatory assumptions : This user is not an adminstrator. Many thanks.

Asgardian (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a civility concern to me. You should note that there is nothing wrong with referring to other editors in edit summaries, what an edit summary should do is describe changes made to the article, when you undo an edit the software automatically names the user who has had their edits undone. This edit summary does not satisfactorily explain the changes made, this one does.

Accusing Tenebrae of breaching civility was not a very good move in my opinion, due to the fact he hadn't broken civility, but also because making such accusations can inflame a situation. The edit summary you seem to have a problem with is: "restoring to last protected version Asgardian unilaterally and summarily reinstalled his controversial, edit-warring version". This, although showing some disregard for your work, is not uncivil, and should not be treated as such.

You seem to be in a content dispute on the Juggernaut page, what I often see at WQA is users who are in content disputes coming here with accusations of civility breaks within the dispute, most the time these accusations, although not malicious, are unfounded. Remember, during a content dispute tempers and patience can fray. It important to AGF, and always keep in mind the goal of the content dispute: to improve the project.

I suggest that you resolve the content dispute with Tenebrae on the article talk page, remember that you both have the same goal in mind, and that you should both try and be as reasonable and polite as possible.

Again, this does not look like a civility issue. Kindest regards, Spitfire 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreee. I think it could be phrased a tad better but it does seem to me that there is an acknowledged edit war in progress and that you did completely change the page and put in a deceptive summary. This seems to be a content dispute and you need to follow that Dispute resolution process. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There would seem to be some inconsistencies here. A previous administrator stated that editors have a right not to be named in Edit Summaries, and yet here another says it is fine. I am also wary of the statement that there was a "deceptive summary" as that implies there was a deliberate attempt at some covert action, which was not true. I suppose this exposes one of those chinks in the Misplaced Pages armour: different people at different times making what are ultimately subjective interpretations of regulations. No matter. We'll move and try and resolve this. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tenebrae. As chronicled here, he is far from the first to find Asgardian's edit-summaries deliberately misleading, and among other things, Asgardian's reaction of very easily bringing up "civility concerns" is traced into a pattern. This page is worth keeping a note of for administrators to gain a wider perspective of the situation. Dave (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The referenced link is to a draft RFC on a user talk page that has not been posted. Doesn't strike me as relevant... Gerardw (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly much better not to name other editors in edit summaries. They can easily turn into personal attacks and are harder to remove than entries in talk pages. As to your edit summary could you be quite a bit more careful in future please not to just say something like you are putting in some extra references when you revert an article to something quite different. I think that would help save hassle like this. Say you are reverting and to what so others know what's happened. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an oversight. Thank you for the advice. Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

This situation may seem minor compared to others on this page, but my intent is to get a little advice and try to curb this before it mushrooms into something more serious. User:WVBluefield has joined an ongoing lengthy discussion at Talk:Bill Maher - a discussion which has already had its share of degeneration into unproductive discourse in the past. WVBluefield entered the discussion by starting this thread with his admittedly soapbox commentary on other editors (myself included):

I have to agree with Weakopedia that the discussion here made it hard for people to weigh in on this RfC. Both of you (Xeno and VT) should tone it down and give the talk page some space for other people to become involved. Now that I’m off my soapbox, ...

He followed that with constructive discussion about article improvement, so I ignored his comments on editors and responded only to his discussion about the article. He then responded by mischaracterizing my comments to him:

...don’t split hairs and argue semantics as it only destroys and degrades the tone conversation and turns people into adversaries.

I felt the insertion of these invectives into an otherwise constructive discussion was unproductive, so I removed the offensive wording, citing WP:NPA, and continued the discussion with him. As sometimes happens when comments about editors are refactored from talk pages, WVBluefield got upset, reverted my removals and threatened to go to ANI if I didn't leave his incivilities on the article talk page.

This was getting worse faster than it was getting better. I tried to engage him on his talk page. Instead of edit warring over his incivilities, I asked him if he would remove his inappropriate comments himself, or explain why he felt they needed to be on an article talk page. His terse response:

I wont be removing anything I wrote.

Here is the full exchange between us on his talk page, which he has since deleted. His commentary about editors and incivilities remain on the article talk page, and he refuses to acknowledge another editor's concerns about them. Well, I've seen worse - so I figured I'd let the still minor matter blow over. Unfortunately, WVBluefield has other plans. After responding to other editors, WVBluefield felt the need to interject this personal attack into an already existent otherwise reasonable comment:

Seeing as how Xenophrenic is so intent on non-cooperation here (its not a contest to see who can type the most) and has failed to put together a coherent argument... here.

That is unacceptable, and I highly suspect I am being baited or trolled into a harsher reaction. Add to that he has been recently blocked for, coincidentally, "incivility and disruptive edit warring on article talk page". That just tells me this has the potential to get worse. Are my concerns warranted? Advice? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Since WVBluefield has stated, "I consider this matter settled, so please dont bother me further about it here", could I impose upon another reader to notify him of this thread? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Gerardw (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do consider this matter settled. Xenophrenic removed not just what he thought were personal attacks but also the additional talk page content that I hadadded, even going so far as to start an edit war over it. He’s been here for a while, so he should know better than to modify talk page content, and he damn well should know that outright removal or deletion of talk page content is prohibited. As far as the potential to get worse, Xeno certainly has his own history and has been sanctioned by Arbcom for turning articles into battlegrounds. I came to the article only because I saw it posted at RfC and I though I could be of some help, as I was to Xeno with a Ward Churchill related article. This alert is entirely spurious and question Xeno’s motivations for posting it. You can consider this my one and only reponse. WVBluefield (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we please remain factual about this, WVB? The link you provided does not show me removing additional talk page content of yours. If you'll look a little more closely, you'll see that you used the (undo) function to revert my removal of your inappropriate commentary on editors, and I then used the (undo) function to revert your edit. You happened to also slip in some additional text with your revert, without noting it in the edit summary; instead leaving it to appear you had only reverted. All of my subsequent edits removed only your inappropriate comments. It surprised me that you would start an edit war to keep inappropriate commentary on an article talk page.

Will you please remove that commentary? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wont remove anything, as your behavior was even worse than I first characterized. I know I said I wouldn’t comment further on this, but one quick response is needed. You deleted my additional paragraph not once, but twice even when one of my edit summaries was very specific that I was adding additional comments. I can only assume that your removal of Don’t modify my talk page comments. There were no personal attacks there, only observations and some constructive advice was your attempt to drive the talk page discussion in a way that favored you. WVBluefield (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect again, WVB, as the links you provided show. Only comments inappropriate for an article talk page were removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is best not to remove other editor's comments except in extraordinary circumstances Misplaced Pages:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If you feel attack, ask the user to remove or rephrase and if that fails bringing to WQA would be a good next step. Could Xenophrenic agree not to edit other's comments and WVBluefield to keep the content discussion on the content and not other editors? Gerardw (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As you advise, I did ask the user to remove the inappropriate comments, and that failed so I brought it here to WQA. The link you provided indicates it is appropriate to remove obvious trolling, which I did. Of course I agree to not edit other's appropriate comments. The inappropriate comments are still on the article talk page. What would you suggest as the correct next step? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at multiple links in quick succession and failed to post this one Misplaced Pages:Talk#Others.27_comments. Simply stated, it's best if you just don't edit others comments. If there is outing information it needs to be deleted (not revised) by an admin. Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is even better if inappropriate comments aren't made on article talk pages in the first place, in violation of WP:NPA and WP:TP. I understand the point you are making regarding deletion of other people's comments. Do you have any suggestions regarding the inappropriate comments presently on the article talk page? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them. Gerardw (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply put: Do not make edits conditionally allowable by guidelines, and ignore edits made by others that are unconditionally prohibited by policy. Got it. Thank you for your input in this matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not a place to come to enlist supporters for your dispute with another editor. The diffs provided to support your claim of NPA do nothing of the sort and to claim that they do is arrant nonsense. At worst the comments could be described as very midly uncivil, but even that is stretching it. On the other hand, editing talk page comments by other editors is forbidden (even editing your own comments on article talk pages is strongly discouraged). Editors have been blocked before for far less and frankly your attitude here seems to be tendentious. I suggest you drop the whole thing, take a break and allow yourself to cool down and then when you come back to Misplaced Pages you might consider editing somewhere else where you are not so emotionally invested. If you continue down your current path I predict a block in your future. No I am not an admin, which is probably just as well for you or you would have already been blocked. - Nick Thorne 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, cowboy! Where did that come from? If you'll please re-read the discussion above, you'll note I have no "dispute with another editor". The issue was NPA instructs us to comment on content, not on editors, and comments like, "Seeing as how Xenophrenic is so intent on non-cooperation here (its not a contest to see who can type the most) and has failed to put together a coherent argument..." really looks like a comment on editors to me. Perhaps you disagree, but that is nothing to get so riled up over. On the otherhand, according to the links provided by Gerardw, there are numerous occasions and situations when one editor might edit or remove another editor's comments. You apparently disagree with this also, but such disagreements hardly warrant your tirade. If you really want to pick a fight, could you please choose someone else? This matter was closed as far as I was concerned. Gerardw was kind enough to give me his input, and I appreciate that, despite our differing viewpoints. Please step back and let the matter rest, Nick. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit, dripping with sarcasm, is hardly that of somebody who has taken on board the good advice of another editor and who considers the matter closed. Your attempt to refactor your blatant deletion (twice) of another editor's comments on an article talk page as somehow acceptable only serves to compound your error. Understand this - it is never acceptable to edit another editor's comments on an article talk page. Full stop. No exceptions. Not ever. It is not me who should stop, it is you, lest you incur the wrath of a passing admin. You are standing on very thin ice there, be careful. You really do not seem to understand the gravity of what you have done. My advice to you is that you forthwith give a full and sincere apology to WVBluefield and promise never to edit, delete or hide the comments of another editor on any article talk page again. - Nick Thorne 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility by User:Satt 2 (talk · contribs)

I am suffering terrible abuse from User:Satt 2 (talk · contribs), please see (chronologically): this edit summary, this post, this post, this edit summary and this post. 08:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. After all the harassment that I receive from him through e-mail, I am not surprised I lost my last nerve.--Satt 2 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have never sent you an email. A sysop should be able to confirm this. Responding to a wikiquette alert with a lie is extremely bad faith. 08:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

well, of course you did not do it through wikipedia when you can harass me in real life. I know you have been stalking me for a while now. You know what, Nasir, just because we could not agree on things in our Euro class does not mean you should take your hate in real life or online.Leave me alone and stop appearing like you're some kind of angel --Satt 2 (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Falsely accusing somebody of harrassment is even more serious than the previous lie you posted. According to your userpage you live in the USA. I live in England (this is my static IP), so i'm not your "Euro class" buddy. 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Posted by 94.192.38.247 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are enough technologically advanced to know that there are a wide range of tricks one can do with IP addresses. Please come up with something more reliable.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And No, I never said you were a "buddy." I did call you a whole range of other things, however.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I want to recommend a sanction be given to this user for his behaviour this morning. 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the administrators will be able to handle this situation without any recommendations from you. I'm sure they have seen a million things like this.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is beyond my understanding how can one view insults in everything. I only suggested that you might be unaware of softwares that change IP addresses to "protect" the owners. They are costly but it is a good investment for certain types of maniacs.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who started, I do know who has to stop. This is not the place to continue fighting (and neither is anywhere else on wiki). --Dirk Beetstra 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've noticed Dirk, I haven't been fighting, I've been reporting a case of gross incivility. 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you keep commenting. --Dirk Beetstra 10:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded to the report by adding lies? Is there something wrong with commenting to respond to that? He has also continued the incivility here - "I never said you were a "buddy." I did call you a whole range of other things, however", "a good investment for certain types of maniacs". 10:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it shows that it does not help either. Remember why you posted here. --Dirk Beetstra 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to help, but yes. 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Satt2 the behavior documented in the original post is unacceptable. Are you willing to cease voluntarily? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the language is inappropriate (although much of it is on talk pages. Having spent time looking at this I think you are both to blame and the edit waring is a nonsense. I have reverted Europe to the position before you both got started on this. I suggest you take some time out, then sit down and use the talk page to reach an agreement. I suggest this is closed, but someone put both editors under a mild warning in case of recurrence. --Snowded 12:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to give Satt2 an opportunity to respond before we consider this resolved. Gerardw (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections to that --Snowded 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Users are routinely sanctioned for a fraction of this behaviour. I wasn't rude to him once, I took all that abuse he threw, I reminded him of the guidelines , I used the talk page to explain my changes, he never once used it. I hope there is a sense of justice around here, so I know I haven't wasted my time trying to do the right thing. 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Satt 2 has responded on my talkpage, and posted a couple of times on a couple of talkpages of mainspace articles. --Dirk Beetstra 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about Stevenmitchell

After receiving an extremely confrontational message on my talk page concerning my otherwise uncontroversial (and I thought welcome) improvement of a poorly made diagram on the menstruation article, I noticed that this user's talk page is full of requests to stop being "a jerk", or to read Don't be a dick or WP:ATTACK, all from different users involved in different articles. It looks like there was a previous Wikiquette_alert concerning this user in June, but the user failed to participate. IMO, it doesn't look like this user is taking our civility policy very seriously. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I posted the following message because I think that you destroyed a very effective diagram by another contributor to Misplaced Pages (it was not my contribution):

Wow - a destructive Admin... Thanks for removing the effective and useful diagram on the Menstruation article and replacing it with a less informative and essentially useless one... Ordinarily, one would think you are part of the watering-down of the media... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Follow this very simply... I actually derived the title from what I had observed on the article in question along with what was posted by numerous other Misplaced Pages editors who are replete with comments on your own User:Talk Page of how you have deleted constructive work (usually the editors themselves were the ones who were deleted and commenting on your page), was that you removed constructive contributions. I am very happy for you that you "by yourself" have decided to be the sole contributor to Misplaced Pages, but as it is a collaborative effort, I am suggesting that you deleted someone's else work that was worthwhile. Under the circumstances, I am rephrasing my point - If you felt so compelled about your own contribution, I believe (and I think this is the Misplaced Pages protocol) that you should have posted this new diagram on the Article Discussion page first or put it in the article along with the existing diagram. Now, because I don't agree with your position or contribution in this instance (and probably never will), you are apparently trying to call for my censorship. Hopefully, the powers that be, are not as narrow in scope or as bullying as you appear to be... (I will post this on your page as well)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly did not destroy anything. I simply replaced an old diagram with a new one in an article. If anyone objects to that, they are free to revert the change or discuss it on the article talk page (neither of which have been done). Personally attacking me is not a solution, nor is it allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither other editor's past characterizations nor another editor's actions changes the standard of civil behavior. Sarcasm I am very happy for you... is not helpful. Gerardw (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First off are the obvious civility issues, which are documented above and in the previous WQA. It's clear that this user needs to calm down when using the 'pedia; the comments of multiple editors on both WQAs make this clear. The civility problems might be helped by more productive engagement with fellow editors in the following two ways. First, Stevenmitchell should read this essay on contributing content to Misplaced Pages. It describes a paradigm for building content collaboratively without needing to attack users who have contrary views. Second, I'd recommend familiarity with the proper use of article talk pages. I have noticed that the user inserts commentary, sometimes sarcastic, into articles as HTML comments (, ), which is productive neither as an efficient way to communicate with fellow collaborators nor in terms of the tone used. — æk 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated allegations of sockpuppetry against myself by User:Legolas2186

Not too long after I began editing on Misplaced Pages, User:Legolas2186 referred to me as User:Pokerdance (an inactive editor who seems to have had issues with socking, judging from the history of his/her talk page). I thought this was simply him getting confused, and when I asked who this editor was, he did not tell me. I ignored this incident and moved on. However, it came up again, but after the aforementioned first incident, he was flat-out accusing me of being a sock of Pokerdance.

• Here, when one of Legolas' friends is warned for a 3RR incident, he says many derogatory and/or false things about me, including again stating that I am a sock of Pokerdance and some other editor User:D.C. Blake (I presume this is one of Pokerdance's socks).

• I then confronted Legolas about the aforementioned incident, where he says he's "more than 100% convinced" that I am Pokerdance and telling me I will be a "banned sock" if I continue with 3RR (which I didn't have a problem with to start with; more false accusations against me).

• After User:Bradcro (one of Legolas' friends) refers to me as Pokerdance at this AFD, I am offended and confront him (not as civil as I could have, but oh well) yet again. He replies only with, "I don't even bother with you untill (sic) you 3RR on the Gaga articles." (Hadn't had an issue with 3RR again and at this time, I was barely editing at Lady Gaga articles.) I tell him to leave me alone about the sock thing, but he doesn't respond (and again continues.)

• When Legolas misuses rollback on an article, I warn him not to do so. He responds in a completely incivil and disrespectful manner: "Please don't lecture me on how to use Rollback sock."

• Here, when an editor disagreed with me opening a GAR on Hilary Duff, Legolas went to this editor's talk page to again state that I am a sock.

This is beyond ridiculous and immature. If he is this convinced I am a sock, he needs to take it up at SPI where checkuser would show I am clearly not a sock. Instead, he is being a bully/troll about it and slandering me anytime he sees my name brought up. It's discouraging me from editing further at Misplaced Pages, and I think he's actually trying to bully me out of here for whatever reason (I never ran across him until he first "accidentally" called me Pokerdance). I want to know what his problem is, why he feels the need to constantly harass me, and why he can't go to SPI if he thinks I am a sock. Chase wc 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I still stand my ground that this user is a sock of User:Pokerdance, User:D.C. Blake becasue of the same editing patterns, genre warrioring and aggressive nature in editing articles. If the user's ways had changed I wouldn't have accused of sockpuppetry, but since it hasnot, I will report it to SPI. --Legolas 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, pending resolution of the SPI, will you avoid referring to Chase wc as a sock? Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution