Revision as of 08:34, 29 May 2010

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

Active alerts

Personal attack or Conflict of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

Hello Alberto. Thank you for responding here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi volunteer team,

The volunteer team needs to go back about 5 or 6 months (prior to my involvement) and look at how underdeveloped the article was. I'm only interested in a concise, complete and accurate development of the Rumble Strip article. I have supported everything I wrote with a wide variety of highly regarded up-to-date references. The cycling references were mainly added by previous editors and I wrote around them. There are 4 "original work" photos in the article but I'm only responsible for 2. It is difficult to use photos from references due to copyright issues.

The Rumble Strip article is my first Wiki article and I'm not the proficient with Wiki rules and editing functions, but I'm getting better.

The above-allegations are new (they are not reflected in Rumble Strip Talk Page). The NPOV banner was installed on Feb 10, 2010, but it has no expiration date. It appears it was placed up on speculation hoping someone would come along and successfully challenge what I wrote, but to-date no one has. So, is the banner going to stay up indefinately? This appears to be an abuse-of-process. Even uncashed cheques are staled dated after 6 months.

I have attempted to discuss the NPOV issue with Alex on his Talk Page and the article Talk Page, but he has been reluctant to engage me.

Alex wrote: " ... as well as a bias against Rumble Strips being generally evil due to their effects on cyclists and the need to build up readership of the article" ????????? If one reads the literature, it is very clear they are only effective in favouable circumstances. Why waste tax payer's money on frivolous installations?

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Doniago and Penbat

Problems with Penbat

I could really use some advice on how to proceed in resolving this situation. Several days ago I reverted edits made by Penbat. Said editor edited Mobbing to include links to numerous films, and then added same as a "See Also" link on multiple film articles in a very short period of time. Concerned that this might be vandalism as there were no edit summaries and the changes were being made extremely quickly, I reverted the edits and gave Penbat a Level 2 Vandalism warning, as Penbat isn't a new editor and past editors have raised concerns on Penbat's Talk page.

Penbat's initial reaction to my changes was to ask for adminhelp and open an item at WP:AN (a situation which was archived without resolution, btw) without notifying me of either action. Rather, they left a heated message on my Talk page which indicated they -might- take action (but didn't reflect the actions they actually took).

Since then Penbat has characterized my edits as Vandalism, reverted my reversion of their edits despite discussion on the Mobbing Talk Page which hadn't reached consensus but certainly didn't seem to support Penbat's initial changes, and has left edit summaries and notes on other users' Talk pages which border on personal attacks, if they don't in fact go well past the border.

I don't feel Penbat's reactions to my reversion of their edits are in any way warranted, and given their behavior since then I don't feel I can have a constructive dialog with them.

Please advise as to how I can best resolve this issue. It is very frustrating to see my good faith actions consistently criticized by a user who in turn shows no willingness to concede any responsibility of their own or a willingness to discuss the matter. Doniago (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that you reverted Penbat's links to numerous films, and similar links at See also, primarily because the edits were not accompanied by edit summaries, were made in a very short period of time, and because other Users have raised similar concerns at Penbat's Talk page, I would say your actions were inappropriate. Giving Penbat a vandalism warning was definitely not warranted. I am not surprised Penbat has not reacted well.

The quality of an edit must be based solely on the technical merit of the edit itself. Extraneous considerations such as the absence of edit summaries, the speed of editing, and what other Users have thought in the past are usually not relevant to the technical merit of the edit in question. When you see the need to revert an edit, but there is some possibility the edit might have been made in good faith, I recommend you leave a constructive message on the User's Talk page explaining why you reverted his edit(s). A vandalism warning, or an angry response of any kind, should be the last resort rather than the first action.

It will be quite a while before cordial relations between you and Penbat are possible. I suggest you take a break from editing Mobbing for at least a few days and allow things to cool down. Dolphin (t) 03:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to that page in several days at this time. In fact I wasn't even aware of its existence until Penbat's serial edits to the film articles.

IMO, far too much weight is being placed on the use of a warning template, especially given that the definition for the warning template used is a "no faith" assumption; i.e. I did -not- assume bad faith. Also...it's one message. It isn't as though Penbat was faced with any sort of disciplinary action.

Regardless of whether or not my edit was appropriate, I don't believe what I did in any way justifies the level of retaliation I've received since. As you didn't appear to specifically address that, I would appreciate some clarification on whether you feel that Penbat's actions -are- justfied. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe you have been subjected to retaliation from Penbat please respond here and give the diffs. For information on harvesting diffs see WP:D&L. The WP:WQA community will be happy to comment on specific instances of behaviour by Penbat, but you need to provide the diffs. Dolphin (t) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You have already provided this diff and I have read it carefully. In this diff Penbat states that he is extremely annoyed but in my view that does not qualify as unreasonable retaliation or uncivil behaviour. Perhaps you can identify other examples that you regard as retaliation? Dolphin (t) 04:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Diffs-

Penbat threatens to report me to WP:AIV

Penbat reports me on WP:AN without notifying me

Penbat characterizes my good faith edits as Vandalism and disregards an ongoing discussion about their edits

I'm again accused of vandalism

And again

Rather than respond to my own WQA thread Penbat opens one of their own in apparent retaliation

Penbat continues to characterize my actions without any consideration for AGF

Doniago (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Doniago, thanks for providing the diffs.

I agree that in the following edit summaries Penbat mentions Doniago in a derogatory manner: diff1 and diff2

In general, User names should not be mentioned in an accusatory or derogatory manner in edit summaries, particularly as the content of edit summaries cannot be erased or revised.

Penbat made this adverse comment about you diff3 in response to this comment you made about him: diff

The rest of the diffs supplied by Doniago don’t illustrate significantly uncivil behaviour. It is every User’s prerogative, including Penbat’s, to raise issues of concern at WP:ANI and WP:WQA. Taking action to raise these issues, or threatening to do so, don’t constitute unsatisfactory or unacceptable behaviour.

My view of the situation is that communication between Doniago and Penbat has deteriorated progressively in a chain reaction. Each action by one has provoked an aggressive response from the other, and so on. In their frustration, both have resorted to antagonism as an attempt to repair the situation. Neither Doniago nor Penbat can claim to have displayed exemplary behaviour in recent times.

In future, Doniago should be more careful in reverting work that was done in good faith (or might have been done in good faith.) He should make greater use of User talk pages to communicate constructively about text he thinks is inappropriate or should be deleted for any reason.

In future, Penbat should resist the temptation to ridicule another User or mention another User in a derogatory manner, particularly in an edit summary. It should now be clear from this page that ridiculing another User can ultimately prove to be counterproductive. When a dispute over content gets too frustrating it is always possible to ask for input from other independent Users by raising the case at WP:RFC.

Doniago and Penbat should now both take a break of a few days from editing in areas that bring each other in to conflict. When they return, they should display exemplary behaviour towards each other. If either fails to do so, the matter can be raised again here at WP:WQA where stronger action might be considered appropriate. Dolphin (t) 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Doniago

I am having problems with user User:Doniago who has IMO behaved in a bizarre and audacious manner and i recommend that he is suspended. He has now compounded the issue by wasting even more valuable time of conscientious editors. He should have just behaved civilly by starting a discussion on Talk:Mobbing from the start instead of throwing bizarre accusations of vandalism around and making wholesale deletions to constructive text.

Tim Pierce examined my edits and no evidence of "vandalism" on my part, see User_talk:Penbat.

1. my edits on Mobbing are entirely constructive - I have added material and not deleted any material
2. the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
3. my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing Kenneth Westhues and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.
4. while i deleted no text, User:Doniago edits made wholesale destructive deletions. He deleted each of the individual "see also" entries i made in the individual film articles as well as text in mobbing. If there was any vandalism involved, it was entirely by User:Doniago not me.
5. User:Doniago admitted that he knew absolutely nothing about the subject of mobbing while I am a relative expert
6. when user User:Doniago undid my edits he amazingly actually rolled back well before I started the contentious text and I have had to spend time clearing up the mess as another editor worked on mobbing in the meantime
7. Tim Pierce has already explained on Talk:Mobbing that the idea of using Category:Films involving mobbing is a non-starter and I totally agree with him for the reasons given.
8. the edits I did created an excellent synergy with an authoritative example list of films in Mobbing (with "See also" links back to mobbing from the individual film articles) where the concept of mobbing is discussed in detail and the link by Kenneth Westhues explains precisely why each film listed is an example of mobbing. From the point of view of the mobbing article, the film list provides useful illustrations of mobbing to the lay reader as the mobbing article otherwise mainly consists of quite dry academic material.--Penbat (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this already the subject of a recent AN thread?, and considering he filed a report about you above, this makes this report seem a bit retaliatory. Why not just reply above? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the question of retaliatory actions on Penbat's part, I'd submit User_talk:Twp#Mobbing and User_talk:FT2#Mobbing for consideration. Doniago (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Penbat. I can see that communications between you and Doniago have been seriously strained lately. There have been wholesale deletions of text, accusations of vandalism, reluctance to use Talk pages to discuss matters, and antagonism. The problems have escalated to the point of provocation, so both you and Doniago have been provoked to behaviour that is not normally acceptable on Misplaced Pages. I can see it has been very exasperating. Now there are matching reports here at WP:WQA. Hopefully those two reports can cause the heat to die down.

I have responded to Doniago’s Wikiquette alert. See the diff. I have recommended that Doniago should be more careful in reverting work that was done in good faith. I have recommended that you should resist the temptation to ridicule another User or mention another User in a derogatory manner.

Unfortunately we aren’t able to say that one User has behaved badly and the other User has behaved well. The only way ahead is for you both to leave the inappropriate and provocative behaviour in the past, and move on. I have recommended that you and Doniago take a break of at least a few days from editing in areas that are likely to bring you into conflict with each other. When you return you should both display a new, constructive approach to Misplaced Pages and to each other. If either fails to behave appropriately the matter should be raised again here and stronger action against the offender might be considered appropriate.

Wherever you see persistent problems with the content of articles it is always possible to use WP:3O to seek a third opinion from an independent User. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 03:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP user

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

• first example
• second example *

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

• first example

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

• first attempt
• second attempt
• third attempt

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reply from IP User 68.49.150.115

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never accused you of being biased, and, again, I'd ask that you submit any evidence to the contrary you can find. I also did not say your arguments were "silly", that comment was made in reference to the continuing discourse on this issue, even after a mediation was held over it in 2008. I apologise if that came off as condescending to your own efforts. Night w (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

John Bessa

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

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

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

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

I have deleted this material. The full rationale is posted at User talk:John Bessa. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cush

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

I would like to document here the following uncivil comments made by User:Cush on a single talk page over a 48 hour span:

• "Of course theology is BS." (20:50, 26 May 2010)
• "Theology is just circle wank, nothing else." (10:17, 26 May 2010)
• "In private, I call that bullshit." (16:53, 25 May 2010)
• "BTW a huge date range such as 440 years rather indicates that the source has no fucking clue as to the actual date of origin." (16:12, 25 May 2010)
• "Radday assigns authorship to biblical patriarchs?? Including antediluvians? Are you shitting us?" (00:11, 25 May 2010)

If this is indicative of the rest of this user's conduct on Misplaced Pages, I should think it should be escalated beyond a "Wikiquette alert". It seems obvious from two prior requests for comment (15:13, 4 November 2009, and 21:36, 22 February 2010 that I'm not the first to make this observation. HokieRNB 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If this sort of concern was already escalated to RfC/U twice within the last 6 months (a step above WQA), then it's not very appropriate to bring it down to this venue. I'd suggest you move this straight to an admin noticeboard, and if that doesn't work, perhaps arbitration is the only remaining option. This is assuming that the concerns raised in the RfC/U are similar to those you are raising here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad behavior from User:Niteshift36

This user decided to make chest-puffing references to his personal fearsomeness in response to an admittedly harsh remark on my part, then proceeded to assert a unilateral right to deface my talk page. Hey, if he wants to show up to a Bullshido Throwdown, he has my invitation and blessing, but apparently he'd rather vandalize and patronize than adhere to WP:DONTBITE. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to defend anything I wrote. I told the editor to stop posting on my talk page (and he continued to post on it). He did not make a similar request, so I made one further post there. As for his idea that I should fly halfway across the country to "prove myself" to him....I haven't stopped chuckling over that. And someone with as many WP:BITEy posts as he has in the AfD about his pet website has no room to invoke BITE at all. There isn't even a violation here for him to complain about. He's just getting pissy because I refuse to continue playing his game. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Cy Q. Faunce because his behaviour fell well beyond what is expected according to the civility policy but I would agree in part with Cy Q. Faunce that Niteshift36's comments aren't exactly conducive to a calm atmosphere either. All of these edits are examples which don't exactly promote a pleasant atmosphere. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, they don't promote a pleasant atmoshpere. That wasn't my intention either. I'd already put up with days of his silliness, distortions and outright lies. Simply didn't care about promoting anything with him, pleasant or otherwise, by then. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Andyjsmith's posting of illegal download and malware

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.

In the discussion of pending deletion for Spaceduck, the user User:Andyjsmith has knowingly posted links to an illegal downloading site offering BBC copyrighted material (without identifying it as illegal). I was baited into clicking it and routed to a site which infected my computer with malware. I've spent the last hour scrubbing it from my hard drive.

Given Andyjsmith's growing hostility and harassment of me, I am sure that he deliberately tricked me into clicking that link to damage my computer. The link was near the bottom of the page; I've manually deleted it to protect others, but it can be seen in Andyjsmith's prior edit. Just be sure your AV software is up to date.

Even if not deliberate, shouldn't he be warned for knowingly posting illegal downloads to copyrighted material and malware sites on wikipedia?

Beyond that, I feel User:Andyjsmith has breached the civility guidelines with (1.c) ill-considered accusations (frivolous sock puppet investigation) (1.d) belittling a fellow editor, judgemental edit summaries Special:Contributions/Andyjsmith ("don't feed the trolls", "more hoaxing") (2.c) lying to mislead & asserting false information (claiming he had investigated links, but he hadn't)

as well as discrediting me on other peoples' talk pages, and making my own (talk) page look like a war zone with all the red alerts, when he could've easily told me on the article talk page what I was doing wrong.

A cursory look at his Special:Contributions/Andyjsmith shows that he's on a crusade to speedily delete anything he doesn't agree with, without offering any constructive input or discussion. I'm not the first newbie he's antagonized. Isn't there a rule about good faith and no biting?

I don't care so much about the harassment, but that illegal downloading site and malware attack was brutal. Clearly a violation of wiki rules and US federal law.

What can be done about a user like this? Chazella (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Chazella is engaged in sockpuppetry and trolling (of which this is an example). I foolishly fed the troll. This user's contributions, those of Wikisicky and the edit history of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck make the situation very clear. It's also worth noting that the article that this row is about, Spaceduck, has previously been speedied as an obvious hoax. andy (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with andy - Chazella is not making reasonable arguments on the AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree; this seems to be merely trolling. I began the AfD discussion in question but have refrained from further comment; if this is evidence of bias, so be it. I'll just suggest that anyone interested in this matter should look at the entire complicated edit history of the AfD and the talk pages of everyone mentioned in the above paragraphs, etc., and make up their own minds. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• This is nothing more than trolling. For those that are interested, this is the diff which gives the website details of the supposed 'malware' that Andy posted. I have checked the torrents website with AVG and perhaps not surprisingly AVG reports "Safe: This page contains no active threats". From all the research I've done the page seems to be legal and it is most certainly not trying to download malware to any computer! The BBC website mentioned is also showing up as OK and the BBC are definitely not an illegal website! Can I ask though why the AFD discussion now has a copyright tag placed on it? --5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• As a note for the reviewing admin, Chazella was recently given an indefinite block for vandalism via the AIV process. GregJackP (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Just one more note - this got spammed to quite a number of pages. Probably best to ignore and move on. Shell 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Androstachys

In the course of a content dispute on Talk:Lindblad resonance, Androstachys has engaged in several personal attacks directed against me. Examples include:

• "It is not my job to teach you basic English"
• "None so blind as those who will not see"
• In the context of a discussion of dictionaries, "Do look up the word 'mumpsimus'". This not only implies I don't know what the word means, it also implies that I am one (for those who need a definition, it is "a person who obstinately adheres to old ways in spite of clear evidence that they are wrong; an ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform", per Wiktionary)
• This insult was then repeated, after I said my patience for personal attacks was running out, "Rather than making inappropriate threats have you even bothered looking up the word 'mumpsimus'?"

I also have grave complaints about Androstachys' editing behavior, though I recognize that this is probably not the right forum to discuss that. We have put out an RFC, but so far it has been ignored. But I especially would like something to be done about the personal attacks. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My Chambers Dictionary defines mumpsimus as "an error cherished after exposure: stubborn conservatism". It would need an ultra-sensitive soul to see a personal attack or insult in this. A large part of his/her indignation seems to be based on speculation as to what I was implying. I also resent BlueMoonlet's "grave complaints" about my "editing behaviour" without being specific. This really is much ado about nothing Androstachys (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You were talking specifically about looking up words on Wiktionary, where the definition is as I quoted it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the CONTENT of the article and not the CONTRIBUTOR. Active Banana (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No - you assumed that I wanted you to look up the word in Wiktionary. But ask yourself why I would invite you to consult Wiktionary when I had just criticised its treatment of the word "media". Really, cut me some slack! Androstachys (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you trying to say that you didn't mean any offense? There are less confrontational ways of saying so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't and of course there are. I think most other editors would have shrugged it off. Androstachys (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then let me put it more plainly: you think/thought wrong. Please strike those parts of your commentary quoted explicitly at the top of this Wikiquette alert report, and ensure you engage in appropriate conduct during discussions in the future (making a statement that you will would go a long way also). That will be enough to resolve this WQA (unless you want this to be marked stuck where the filing party would be required to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No - I don't think that any reasonable editor would feel that my words were uncivil. BlueMoonlet triggered this incident by patronisingly telling me "It is not Misplaced Pages's job to fix "mistakes" made by reliable sources. I am reverting the changes now. If you come up with relaible sources to support your view, we can talk again in this space about changing it back. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)" and then displaying hurt innocence when I responded in kind. Androstachys (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Something else - The heading of this complaint reads "Incivility by Androstachys" as if that is a foregone conclusion - the reason for the matter to be discussed in this forum is to determine exactly that. It is a prejudicial heading. Androstachys (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

It didn't take long for the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Jensen:_Do_serious_accusations_from_potentially_biases_sources_require_a_higher_standard_of_proof.3F to degrade into name-calling. I'm almost relieve it all fell apart before I could manage my first reply to the abuse (and inevitably get sucked in): , , , . Rvcx (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem that you and Off2iorob attempted to make your own personal judgement on a 123 page paper written in 1969 in educational psychology.

Usually in psychology textbooks this particular paper is referred to as notorious or controversial. This is a preposterous thing to attempt to do. When we edit wikipedia articles, we can't read research like this ourselves - we need secondary sources and the same thing applies on WP:BLPN. There you claimed that ] was a malicious academic (what evidence?), that commentary from his article was malicious (what evidence), that Jensen hadn't published any statements on eugenics (what evidence?), or on rote learning vs abstract conceptual learning (what evidence?), that he had never published anything on applying this differentially to blacks and whites (what evidence?). You responded so quickly that you couldn't have looked at the sources I provided (about six different sources). You made claims of libel about published books by Cambridge University Press and University of Illinois Press, probably without ever looking at the books to substantiate that very serious allegation. The quick fire comments suggested that there was no attempt to examine sources. I would that would take the average person about 2 or 3 hours. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did none of those things, however I did spend ninety minutes reading through a lot of material trying and failing to verify some text about Jensen's views on race. If reliable sources can be found for the statements then great; post them at the noticeboard. But I'm not able to work with you if you take such an insulting, condescending, and combative approach. Rvcx (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You responded extremely rapidly, making unfounded statements about potential libel. On the other hand, you cannot have had any chance to examine my arguments in a calm way nor to go about checking the sources, which as I say would take 2-3 hours. Instead you started analysing the 1969 paper of Jensen. I questioned why you thought you were in any position to make remarks on such a paper (as wikipedia editors we certainly can't). I objected because you were acting as if you had some expertise in being able to interpret such a paper. No wikipedian has that expertise. That is why we use secondary sources. Why did you make statements about libel? Why did you start trying to analyse whether Jensen had discussed eugenics? You were responding far too rapidly - too me at the speed of a video game - without carefully examining the sources, or indeed paying any attention to the detailed remarks that I wrote. The fact that you have brought this here is not particularly helpful, is it? Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good grief; has it occurred to you that it might take less time to read or look up a source (particularly one that you've either already read, or have readily available) than it does to make a post on Misplaced Pages? Has it also occurred to you that calling other Wikipedians "amateurs", even during difficult situations, is likely to serve to escalate a dispute rather than deescalate? And finally, has it occurred to you that you could effectively convey the same point without the bad faith assumptions and increasingly strident rhetoric? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) May I suggest that mathsci refactor this post. Then we can all move on with our lives. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider refactoring the part about "reality" in this comment also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the part about arbcom which is uncalled for. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this aren't really helping the situation. Rvcx (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And we're still going. Rvcx (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or is MathSci's behavior absurd? Here he accuses me of accusing Williams Tucker of being "a dishonest and partisan liar," when, in fact, I have done nothing of the sort. If anything, I think that the problem is either that MathSci misinterprets Tucker or that Tucker has made an honest mistake. Perhaps a more senior admin could counsel MathSci about his behavior? He has heeded none of the advice provided above by other uninvolved editors. His contributions are 99% excellent, but his attitude when challenged on the other 1% is, I think, uncalled for. David.Kane (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is a clear over reaction to what seems to general indifference to the WP:CPUSH issues currently plaguing various race related articles. I don't think Mathsci's behaviour is excusable, but I expect that until the WP:CPUSH issue is resolved flareups like this will continue. A.Prock (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

<= In this case David.Kane opened a case on WP:BLPN claiming that only critics ill-disposed to Arthur Jensen had reported that he had suggested the possibility of rote learning for blacks. When I realized the submission had been made, two editors were simultaneously active on BLPN, rapidly adding comments, so that any carefully documented response by me always ended up with multiple edit conflicts: I found that extremely confusing. Just things going too fast. Now as it turns out, after a lot of hard work (as is usual with locating neutral secondary sources), I have found several other sources, two of which have now been posted on BLP. They make exactly the same statement as the one contested by David.Kane, but this time are written by writers of straightforward textbooks (on psychology and gifted education). That lays to rest the claims of a BLP violation. On WP:BLPN I did have the impression that editors were too quick to assume that David.Kane's claims were correct; but it was quite a strange and highly unusual submission accompanied as it was by unsupported hearsay about two quite eminent academics, whose reputations remain unblemished. I imagine it was confusing for everybody; certainly it was for me. I apologize unreservedly to Rvcx for any offence accidentally caused during the handling of this extraordinary and, as it turns out, unwarranted submission. Apologies again. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment with sexual innuendo

The following has been placed on my discussion page ] User:PeeJay2K3

I dont know that I agree about "sexual innuendo", but the reinsertion of that content on a userpage is inappropriate. I have left a note on the users talk page Active Banana (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution