This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cptnono (talk | contribs) at 01:38, 20 December 2010 (→Cptnono). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Cptnono

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

Cptono is a bully editor and uncivil to other users. Here is a statement he made on the glenn beck talk page:

Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And here is a statement he made on my own discussion page:

Go cry yourself to sleep, sweetheart.Cptnono (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed his history as an editor, this is part of a clear pattern. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have little use personally for the editor you're complaining about. But this is extremely weak sauce. The advice in the first quote seems reasonable (write a proposed draft/change). The second comment is a bit dickish, but so what? There may indeed be a broader problem with him (or not) but there's no there, here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

These are just the two most recent examples. This is routine behavior for Cptnono, and he has done much worse in the past. He, like many editors, bullies new users, and users who disagree with him. And I would suggest saying something like "Cry yourself to sleep" when someone is raising legitimate points, is bullying. As is his other statement. I shouldn't have to tolerate. Nor should other users. Free exchange of ideas is fine. Free reign for bullies and jerks is not. If this is how things are on wikipedia, I will not contribute any more. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this: WP:DIFF. Compile a bunch of them if there there to be dealt with, and the open up an RFC/U (see WP:RFC). I strongly doubt anything will come of this specific complaint. It's just too minor in isolation. You'll have to demonstrate the broader problem, if it's there to see.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't minor. Veteran editors name calling and belittling new users, is a problem and it frankly reflects poorly on wikipedia. I've watched Cptnono as I've read articles for some time. He is a habit of attacking other users and using wikipedia editorial policies as a vessel for bullying. I am not going to take hours out of my day to trace every statement he made and build a case against him. Either the editors here are willing to do their homework to keep wikipedia free of cyberbullies or they aren't. But you can be sure, I will no longer contribute. Just don't feel like being attacked without any moderators stepping in. Especially when I raise a very legitimate concern, and it is clear Cptnono is abusing his veteran status to help advance his own partisan viewpoint in articles. Good day.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a warning for it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Your comments were out of line and I am not bullying you. Simply asking you to follow our standards. You still haven't provided a proposed line with a source attached. That is a simple enough request.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments weren't out of line. There are serious problems with that article. I pointed out what they were on the discussion page. I didn't even make any edits tot he actual article, I just wanted to bring problems with it to peoples' attention. Then I supplied some links to prove the point. I have no interest in attaching my name to an article that is obviously the victim of partisan consensus building. I noted that fact and you jumped all over me. I also have been watching you as a wikipedia reader for some time, and this is part of a clear pattern with you. I wish you no ill. But don't bully me and don't call me names. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not see how "Am I the only one who suspects this article was crafted mainly by pro-Beck editors. The "disputes" section is an obvious attempt to obfuscate his numerous controversies." and "The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to" inappropriate then we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are my honest opinions based on the text in the article and its history. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but should I not express concern about bias in an article? I clearly saw evidence of bias, and you dismissed my concerns with a wave of the hand. You then used the rules as a bludgeon when it appeared I had raised some legitimate issues of bias in the article. There are plenty of good, unbiased articles on wikipedia. The Glenn Beck page does not appear to be one of them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to show this isn't isolated. It appears there is another posting on this page regarding Cptnono. The person in question certainly made a snide remark to the editors, but that doesn't warrant this response from Cptnono:

"What does the mean you stupid fuck? Who do you think created that page? I know you are sad that no one agrees with you but shut up already. Cptnono (talk)"

Again, this guy has a history. You can it ignore it, or you can acknowledge it for what it is: bullying. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I have a history of incivility. I can acknowledge that. But I was not "bullying" you. "1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top." is not mean an anyway. But you just said you "Have no interest in wrangling with users" so maybe you should stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would feel worse but calling someone a fuck was a response (albeit an inappropriate one) to an NPA and my responses to you were based on your continuous accusations of malicious editing. Pot calling kettle black.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You were bullying. The snippet you just posted was not an example of that, what I posted of your statements was however. I saying specific editors were unbiased, I was observing that the page was biased and it looked like it was edited by people favorable to Beck. There is a difference between that, and what you did, which was to target your attack at me specifically. Forget it though, if wikipedia is going to let you continue using the F word against users (whatever your justification), I want no part in wikipedia. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The bullying started when you said "cry yourself to sleep sweetheart" on my talk page and when you said "Blah, blah, blah" in response to points I had raised. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

He is continuing to bully edit on the Glenn Beck Talk Page. I am trying to draft a reasonable entry, and he is just blocking it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not continuing to bully you. Three editors agree that it should not go in and have provided reasoning. I have offered you several suggestions and not been uncivil since I was warned. You on the other hand have repeatedly asserted that editors are not including it due to bias which is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My most recent suggestion . Your most recent attacks/assumption of bad faith: Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this isn't so bad but it isn't helping: Consensus is part of what we do here and your response to not achieving it does not need to be to assume that others are intentionally editing in a malicious manner. If you notice, I have been editing the page for awhile and have been happy with its neutrality. It says some scathing things about the guy. If you do not think so you should request that it be checked for neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You are just using the rules to be a bully editor. Plenty of editors agree with the addition, and you and the others are blocking it for political reasons. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it outrageous that in an article on a major political pundit, who frequently talks about Islam and Terrorism, the fact that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10% doesn't get mentioned. That is not a neutral article at all. You are just allowing beck fans to dilute the content. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to take his words out of context? If you really want to rail about Beck simply go to DK or HuffPo or MMfA and post your thoughts on their boards. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again how are those words taken out of context. He said that many people say only 1% of muslims are terrorist and he thinks the number is closer to 10%. In 2003 he said something similar, stating that 10% of them want to kill us. Just because he was making another point when he said it, doesn't mean the statement has no meaning. He said it. That is a fact. It has been covered by major news organizations. That is a fact. This is exactly what I am talking about. Clearly users like Arzel are beck supporters and are protecting the page from additions that they feel are negative. There is no way anyone can listen to the program where beck says the number is closer to 10% and feel it is being taken out of contextDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't care for Beck, and never listen to him. What I don't like are POV pushers that see something on MMfA, HuffPo, Daily Kos, or one of the other far left blogs come here to promote their point of view. The first I even heard of this incident was here, which leads me to believe that it is not that big of a deal. You should really take your issue up with all of the people that answered the orginial poll which gave Beck his ammo to begin with. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to rail about Beck. I just want the article to accurately reflect what the guy is about. And I think him saying he thinks the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%, is significant enough to include. When I look up a public personality, I want access to controversial statements they've made so I can make my own judgment about them. By all means, include the context, and include his explanation. But include it you must. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is not OK. I am sorry you feel beat up on but you came to the talk page and started rocking the boat and not assuming good faith. You are the continuing to be uncivil.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, you are being a bully editor. You are using the rules as a weapon to keep relevant details out of articles. You are misusing consensus as well. I looked up the consensus guidelines. At this stage, we should actually be getting mediation on the entry. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And the user just won't stop:"Because it is basically being written by his followers already.""he beck fans are able to have their way on wikipedia because they know how to use consensus as a weapon." WP:NPA can apply in two ways "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." The later would apply if I was a fan but I have already said on the talk page that I am actually not a fan. Editors should not have to deal with the repeated accusations. I can understand it happening but he has been asked to stop several times. I get that he disagrees and feels bullied but such feelings do not allow for him to continue to assume the worst of faith. So maybe it is time that he is given a firm reminder and notice that further personal attacks will lead to a restriction on him editing the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its time to ban Cptnono's account because he bully edits and because he is basically preventing a highly relevant news story from being included in the beck article. Cptnono, I'm not going to wrangle with you on the beck page (which is why I haven't edited the actual article), but its clear you and many other editors are restricting items on that page for some reason. Can I prove its because you are biased? No. But I have a very strong hunch about it. And here is just another example of you bully editing someone.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would just ask the powers that be to examine cptnono's entries and his interactions with other users over the past several months. I am not the only one he has bullied, attacked or been uncivil to. And he has made a practice of using wiki policy as a weapon. What is more, he uses it selective to get his way on articles. I've taken the time to look up every guideline he cites, and with the possible exception of assuming good faith (a guideline I think is deeply misguided) he is missapplyuing all of them, or providing an incomplete picture of the guideline. Also suggest someone examine the Beck page. It has significant issues. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been warned for being uncivil to you and not continued. Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive so it obviousley would not be needed. Even more importantly it has to be pretty extreme to warrant a block. Civility blocks are pretty rare and my one dickish comment to you was not severe enough. I am not saying I will make it again but it wasn't bad enough for a block. You on the other hand have ignored requests to stop. SO I don;t want to see you blocked neccassarily but it might be time for you to not edit that talk page anymore especially since you have already clearly said you are not interested on working on the article. If you do not want to work on the article you should not be there. I would welcome reviews of the page. Some people said the same thing you are saying a few months ago and they came in gung-ho. I sat back and watched and in the end they adjusted like 1 paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was actually blocked for civility once (for three hours) but that was part of arbitration enforcement where decorum standards are much stricter. So maybe a good way to close this out is for me to be nicer (I haven;t even been mean to you since this was opened) and you do the same. But if you continue to make personal attacks you will need to not work on that talk page anymore. You should also probably consider working on the article since you are not improving the article right now.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't realize there was yet another one. I have linked you to NPA and spelled out exactly what you are doing wrong. Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing here. Will someone please close this string, which has already been open too long?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono looking at your most recent responses on the Beck page, I don't believe you've become more civil. Perhaps your natural style is just a little peppery, and you don't realize how it comes across, but most of your posts come off as insulting. And the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is this: I make general criticisms of the page and those who have edited it as a group, whereas you make criticisms of specific individuals. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have considered the article, but you;ve told me my addition will be deleted by you if I make it. You keep wielding "Consensus" and other guidelines as weapons. But when I look them up and compare them to our discussion it is clear you are misusing them. So far no one has provided good reasons for keeping the entry out of the page. A number of people have agreed it is relevant. And those who disagree, clearly won't change their minds no matter what. Which is why, out of frustration, I am saying the fans of beck are controlling the page. It may be against guidelines to assume good faith. But when it is so obvious they blocking consensus, what is one to do. I mean, one of them actually argued it shouldn't be included because in his view calling muslims terrorists is a compliment in their culture. I am sorry but Beck's assertion thatr the number muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%, and Zakarias response on CNN (as well as reactions in the Huffington Post and coverage in the NY Daily News) make this a major statement and controversy. It should be included. I assume anyone who wants to know about his views on musilms and terrorism would want that included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cptnono looking at your most recent responses on the Beck page, I don't believe you've become more civil. Perhaps your natural style is just a little peppery," Maybe that is the issue. Can you point to which response you are talking about since I do not recall saying anything lately that would be seen as offensive. Also, the content discussion should be kept over there and not here.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have twice had occasion to remind Cptnono about civility guidelines: and . The guideline Comment on content, not on the contributor is there for a purpose. Unfortunately the reminders did not appear to have the desired effect: "he can fuck off for making that comment" and "kneejerk garbage". I suggest that Cptnono take some time to consider why they were blocked for incivility after facing an Arbcom enforcement case. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have received a block (due to articles under AE having stricter standards) and warning since the Nov 17th one so it is stale and handled. And yes, on my talk page I did refer to your warnings as knee jerk garbage. Asking "Have you read WP:CAPTION" is not uncivil. If I would have said "Have you even read CAPTION" or "Hey, idiot, go read CAPTION" that would not be civil. It was an honest question that you read the tone in incorrectly. And your second warning was for saying that you had not presented an alternative. There was no personal attack there. We were having a discussion on how to improve the article and I was asking for you to do more. It was an overreaction on your part. And "knee-jerk garbage" on my own talk page is far from crossing any lines. Stop poking editors on their talk pages for no good reason and you won't have to deal with it in the future. The double standard shown in the above and below reports (editors making attacks then me getting grief for responding) is ridiculous but I can at least understand where Deliciousgrapefruit and Walter Görlitz are coming from. But this latest comment from Kenilworth Terrace reeks of a game being played or a simple overreaction based on other mistakes (I don't know which). And since since there is no true personal attack in this recent comment, no block or warning is warranted since I already recently received a warning based on bullet point two of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Blocking for personal attacks we should be done here. There have not been any further personal attacks since F&W sent me a reminder. Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Profanity directed at editor on editor's talk page

• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Walter Görlitz (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this edit I commented Original creators called it a move. You dolts opine it's not. and then added a comment to the talk page to explain how two editors were taking the fight from another article to this one. Essentially the Vancouver Whitecaps FC have played in a second division league and have purchased a franchise in the first division MLS (the only way to enter it). The debate on their club pages is whether the club is moving or it's a completely different team. This debate is about whether the supporters group is decide whether they themselves are moving to the MLS (they created article) or whether to censor the phrase "moving to" from a single heading. While I was writing on the talk page, one of the two opponents to the concept that the club is moving left this message for me and has been hounding me since and is has not taken the opportunity to talk about it on the article page. The editor later stated And also please don;t start making personal attacks if swearing hurts your feelings.]. My reason for stating that they were dolts is that they were not thinking rationally in thinking that the supporters group and club are under the same rule. Again, the "move" phrase was added by the supporters team, not me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bit confused. Are you reporting yourself for calling two other editors "dolts"? ← George 12:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

He was probably a little upset a being called a "stupid fuck". Walter, it's best not to insult other editors if you don't want them to insult you back. Cptnono's approach of demonstrating this to you wasn't acceptable, but it was a clear demonstration. Fences&Windows 14:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. Yes, neither behavior is particularly helpful. ← George 10:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not acceptable at all. And I honestly don't know why you are dismissing his concerns. He probably should receive a warning himself for snapping at some editors like that and being uncivil. But the response to his remarks was wholly unjustified and unnacceptable. If people feelt his is okay, it really makes me wonder about what kind of folk are editing this site. We are supposed to be here to work as a community to build a viable reference service online. But it feels like editors are given free reign to attack others in terrible ways. Swearing at users should not be allowed. Period. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, personal attacks and swearing aren't acceptable. I've already warned Cptnono, and they've acknowledged the warning. Walter doesn't need warning - he's read this section and knows now not to make personal attacks, I think. Fences&Windows 23:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything, George. I called him a stupid fuck after he called me a dolt. But yeah, F&W did warn me. I actually thought it was for the report above and didn't even realize this was here until just now. Both happened within about a day and I was a little touchy after being called a dolt and being a dick. No problem since and I will keep the warning in mind. One thing I find interesting is that both reporting parties made the first blow. Yes, I have a habit of responding in kind. I get that it is a problem and have repeatedly asked editors since both these incidents to not make attacks instead of being a jerk back. Of course, "turn the other cheek" is not a wikipedia guideline but I see it being related.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yuvrajask

• Yuvrajask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joseph Vijay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User constantly reverting good faith edits to a format that apparently suits his own personal taste. After reminding him of WP:MOS and requesting him to stop his vandalising edits, he began vandalising my own talk page with profanity and continued to revert edits with inappropriate edit summaries. He seems to have a history on vandalism from seeing his talk page edit history. He has also tried changing my message on his talk page back to a previous one which I had reverted, seemingly in an attempt to frame me; I have reverted it back to the message I originally wrote. Blocking this user from editing will help prevent his destructive actions, arrogance, and attitude he shows towards fellow editors. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What does POTTA SOOTHU mean? (If anything). Fainites scribs 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not anything nice, as far as my limited searching told me. I've indef blocked, they've been a nothing but a troublemaker their entire short editing career. Fences&Windows 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that actually means "female ass" transliterally in the Tamil language. Clearly they think Misplaced Pages is a social networking site. Thanks for the block. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. (Google translate only had Urdu and Hindi, not Tamil). Fainites scribs 08:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonewah

• Bonewah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

During a difficult discussion about article content, Bonewah referred to my arguments as "sophistry". As the article confirms, this is a derogatory term, implying that I put forth intentionally false arguments.

I, perhaps understandably, took offense at this insult and insisted that they redact it. Their response was, in my opinion, dismissive and uncooperative.

Based on my understanding of WP:RPA, I replaced "sophistry" with the more neutral "arguments". My edit comment was "redacting uncivil comment: you get to disagree, but not to denigrate". This was reverted, twice.

I would like the comment to be removed and for the editor to be warned about incivility. Dylan Flaherty 08:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RPA states "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Not that strong, really, to warrant you removing it. BTW: I think you missed the last sentence of the first paragraph, where Bonewah says "...turning our concerns about a source into proof that that source is ok is pure sophistry.". That's twice he mentions "sophistry" : do you want that removed, too? You can't go around refactoring other editors' comments and then reinserting them (esp. when reverted by other editors). You can ask editors to redact or strike things, but if they don't you aren't to take it into your own hands. I don't support the comments as they are probably derogatory, but you should always wait for a redaction (if the editor is willing to do it). Good luck, Dylan :> Doc talk 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) This is a true personal attack, twice. Sophistry is the intentional use of false but plausible arguments. As such, rather than simply disagreeing with my arguments, they are impugning my motives, which violates WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

2) If you look at the flow of edits that I linked the diffs to, I believe you'll see that they were asked to redact, and then given the opportunity to do so.

3) Yes, I do want all mentions of that insult removed.

4) According to WP:RPA, I actually can.

5) Since we agree that they are derogatory, can we agree that they should be asked to stop making them? Dylan Flaherty 09:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As to 2) and 4): you are supposed to wait some reasonable time for them to remove it; and you have been told by several editors not to remove it as you did, so you are possibly misinterpreting what should be removed according to WP:RPA. You also have not notified the editor of this thread, as you are required to... Doc talk 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll notify them right now. Dylan Flaherty 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Also, I would like to amend item 4 to mention WP:TPO, as well as WP:RPA. It explicitly allows removal of personal attacks, as opposed to uncivil comments. Dylan Flaherty 10:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." That means this was not "exercising caution" after this, which led to this warning of a block. Let the editor remove it, not you: it can be "troublesome". Doc talk 10:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Dylan Flaherty 10:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good - and I didn't mention the other points because I do think the comments are unnecessary and "commenting on contributors and not content", and he should probably consider striking them to show good faith. The history's there, and it's not going to be rev-del'd, so striking it is a fair thing to ask for. Doc talk 10:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I edit under my real name, so I would hate to have someone Google me and have "sophistry" pop up. Dylan Flaherty 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, though, it's already out there. If you're asking for Oversight, I don't "forsee" that being likely in this case... Doc talk 10:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Oversight would only be appropriate if they had mentioned my street address, for example. No, what this is about is the tone of the conversation on that talk page. Dylan Flaherty 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this report still active? I ask because User talk:Dylan Flaherty#December 2010 has some clear advice (that using "sophistry" is on the very mild end of uncivil), and that advice seems to have been accepted. I agree that the diff provided above is very mild, and the comment is detailed and provides reasoning in an attempt to justify all its claims. I am not commenting on the issue or whether the message by Bonewah was "correct"; I am just saying that it does not warrant the reaction that it has unfortunately produced. I suggest that anyone wanting to engage at Talk:Sarah Palin should be prepared for robust comments, and if someone claims your argument is sophistry (and provides reasoning), you need to engage with that reasoning. Certainly, if a majority of the responses involved some negative term such as "sophistry", a wikiquette issue may be involved, but it appears (I have only looked at this quickly, so please correct me if I'm wrong), that Talk:Sarah Palin#no mention of her thinking Africa is a country? is a long attempt to introduce text asserting Palin made a blunder, and Talk:Sarah Palin#Africa is an attempt a very short time later to rediscuss the same topic. Robust commentary (with reasoning) is to be expected under those circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That was one person's opinion. Other people, including myself, felt that it was not at all mild.

I don't believe your summary of the background is entirely correct, but I'm not going to quibble over it because I think it misses the point, regardless. Yes, that article is high-profile and controversial, so any discussion of this sort is likely to be, as I said earlier, difficult. This is not an excuse for incivility, it is the reason that civility is especially necessary. There is absolutely no justification for violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. If they had simply addressed my arguments and explained their reasons for disagreement, we would not be here now. Presumably, some of us would be having productive discussions about article content. Dylan Flaherty 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The term sophistry is a comment on an editor and should be avoided. It does not contribute to the discussion and it is much better to explain what is wrong with the argument rather than what is wrong with the editor. TFD (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty

"Sophistry" being complained about? Amazing considering the complainant has said you're talking about is your bizarre theory that this article should be held hostage to the content of Bill Moyers. If so, that was laughed out of the courtroom. And where he appears to outright accuse me of sock puppetry! Not to mention where he accuses me of drive-by tagging for daring to maintain a POV tag on an article which he cavalierly removed saying each time it is replaced, a new discussion is required (You are in violation of WP:NPOVD with regard to Charles G. Koch. This is a simple procedural rule which you can satisfy by creating a section to discuss any suggestions you might have.) All in all -- I know whom the WQA should be considered to be about at this time. And it is not Bonewah. As to Dylan;s definition of "civility" examine It's very uncivil to remove a warning with "rm trash". Unfortunately, you can't redact an edit comment, but an apology would work. following which I asked him not to post to my talk page, to which he responded with the sock puppet accusation! Collect (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, though that's the least of Dylan's disruptive behavior.

• I've also been falsely accused of drive-by tagging by Dylan, who has edit-warred to remove the tag, though multiple editors have stated the tag is appropriate.
• He's repeatedly harangued me on my talk page despite multiple requests not to violate WP:MULTI.
• He's inconsiderate of editors' time, and insists on that every article has a WP:DEADLINE where other editors must comply with his editing schedule.
• There are also WP:OWN problems on the talk page, where Dylan makes demands of other editors to restate arguments that have already been made, other editors comply with the demands, and then Dylan repeats the demands several times a week. It's awfully tedious that he insists on repetitive meta-conversations in new talk-page sections by falsely announcing a consensus for his position (after ignoring the discussion in the previous debate and the multiple editors who disagree with him) unless editors comply with a demand to start a new thread.
• He personally attacks any editor who takes a position he disagrees with: this frivolous WQA report against Bonewah is entirely consistent with his generally WP:HOUND behavior.

We could avoid a lot of wikidrama if Dylan was simply barred from political articles: he's already stated his propensity for POV-pushing by insisting that it is appropriate to have a different BLP standard for biographies about left-wing political figures than right-wing political figures, and I've seen no indication that he's willing to edit collaboratively. He seems to be here for WP:BATTLE. THF (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for trying to sling as much mud as possible. I find it very educational, if not at all accurate. Dylan Flaherty 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I suggest that this is outre (accent missing) coming from the person who "slung" an accusation of sock puppetry on my talk page. Kindly avoid slinging mud at me, and it then could not be reported here. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your intervention here is at all productive, and I'm not even sure it's meant to be. However, taking it at face value (as WP:AGF demands), I would be more than willing to parse out each of your claims and gently refute them. Still, I see no reason to do so here, as that would distract from, you know, the issue at hand. Remember the issue at hand? I do, and it has nothing to do with anything you brought up. Dylan Flaherty 12:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue you raised about Bonewah was, specifically, "civility." Every example I gave of your own behaviour specifically addresses that exact issue. Unless, of course, you feel that accusing a person of being a sock puppetteer on his talk page after berating him for properly removing material from his talk page is now "civil behaviour"? Do you still think I am a sock puppetteer, by the way? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the issue here is Bonewah's civility. It is not any of the things you are trying to toss into the pot. I am willing to discuss your issues, but not in this forum, where they would serve primarily as a distraction. In fact, I'm going to suggest that you voluntarily hat/hab this entire exchange. Dylan Flaherty 12:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, sophistry does not mean willful lying, it mostly means a kind of flawed argument or outlook. It's mildly uncivil, not a helpful thing to say about any editor on a talk page, but it's not a wanton personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a battle of the dictionaries, but according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry (emphasis mine):

1. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2. an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

Likewise, according to http://en.wiktionary.org/sophistry:

1. An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so.
2. The art of using deceptive speech or writing.
3. Cunning or trickery.

We could exchange dictionary definitions all day, and you may well be able to find gentler definitions than these, but I think I've done my part to show why it is entirely reasonable for me to have taken this as an insult and a personal attack.

It might also be plausible that they had one of those gentler definitions in mind, meaning an unintentional fallacy, so no insult was planned. However, when I asked them to redact it, they stood firm. I'm not sure what else I need to say here. Dylan Flaherty 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though anyone was calling you a liar, the word's meaning is, at the most, much more open than being a synonym for that. You might want to think about assuming a bit more good faith with other editors and peacefully, neutrally asking them what they mean if you think you've been slighted by something they've said. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deceptive. Deceive. Deliberate. Deceptive. Trickery. All of these words add up to "liar". Dylan Flaherty 12:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the context of the talk page discussion, it seems to me that Bonewah was remarkably restrained given the considerably more uncivil provocation you provided. THF (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a delightfully idiosyncratic view of things, THF. In your eyes, nothing is as it appears to others. Don't ever change. Dylan Flaherty 13:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly "civil", Dylan. "Beware the boomerang"... Doc talk 13:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's positively lighthearted. Dylan Flaherty 13:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is probably the sarcastic comments like the previous two that led to him calling you "sophistry" in the first place. I suggest you back away from the ledge you are dangerously close to falling off. Arzel (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest that editors that have a problem w/ Editor:Dylan open their own WP:WQA. This one is about Editor:Bonewah.Buster Seven Talk 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(noting that I did not create the section with Dylan's name) All WP complaint boards have the same policy -- he who complains may find his own conduct being discussed as well. No "hi-jacking" occurs when this happens. Collect (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Frankly, "sophistry" isn't far off from how I think most folks would define Dylan's aggressive battleground, tendentious, point-of-view warrior "debate" style after a thorough review. On several talk pages he has utilized the same idht, rinse, wash, repeat, ctdape campaign to varying degrees of success. (For the record, I think I agree with some of his viewpoints, just not his methods.) I think he really ought to step back and recognize, too, that the subtle canvassing and increasing bouts of edit warring are unlikely to be tolerated for long. jæs (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'd add that, given his concerns expressed above, he should sincerely consider exercising his right to vanish and return under a pseudonym. If he does indeed continue to edit with the same reckless abandon against neutral collaboration, I suspect he may soon have greater concerns on Misplaced Pages than a mild remark regarding his editing tactics. jæs (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that Collect's comments here are entirely civil and appear to contain sarcasm. ""Sophistry" being complained about? Amazing.... to which he responded with the sock puppet accusation!... Eh?... Kindly avoid slinging mud at me, and it then could not be reported here. Thank you most kindly...." TFD (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing "thank you most kindly" as being "uncivil"? Or that I disputed his accusation that I was "mud slinging" becomes my incivility? Pray tell, am I to just sit back when un-verities are uttered? And that you so clearly note "sarcasm" when others do not see it? Collect (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

user snowded

Hi, i made this report against user snowded due to what i consider impolite or uncivil communications

I have attempted on many occasions (which you will see from the above links) to resolve this issue by talking to User Snowded to attempt to resolve issue in a civil manner but my attempts at this have failed. i have also asked snowded not to post messages on my user talk page on a number of occasions whilst this issue is not resolved and he appeared to not follow my request. My main concern is the general method in which he talks to people on WP in what i would say it would in most cases be in a derogative manner when it comes to an issue of non agreement and use of edit summary's to make guised uncivil remarks there have also been cases of Edit warring on the UAF article page although this is not my main concern and the conduct of the user is more important if this can be resolved

(i may not be availble for reply until later in the day so if i don't reply to discussions i will ASAHP. Thanks for looking into this

Johnsy88 (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a 3rr notification on the users page per proper process. Otherwise if s/he would care to list some specific examples to support the claims I'll happily respond. I suspect this is noise to avoid a block for continued edit warring--Snowded 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're apparently a long-term abuser, Snowded, and his forum-shopping here proves it to some. Or not. Doc talk 12:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont not see your reasoning behind the claim of "noise" when the report i made was completed (be it incorrectly placed in the wrong area due to my own inexperience in editing WP) days before your own 3rr claim so i would deduce from what you are saying and your actions that your own 3rr claim is actually noise due to the fact i have raised this issue before hand. As i already stated many times to you snowded my issue is with the manner of your approach when speaking to new and current WP users and the fact that you seem to almost using scoring and non user friendly communication in both your summary's and your discussions when it comes to an issue you are passionate about. I fully understand that everyone gets heated when discussing issue but getting like this serves to help no one and simply causes the catalyst for potential edit warring and basic uncivil and sometimes rude communications with other users. can you not see my point of view?

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Be specific Johnsy88, you are not a new user anymore, you have a block history for edit warring and attempts to advise you are rejected. This the third forum you have posted on and its noise unless you give examples to which I can respond. --Snowded 13:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnsy88 has made a number of edits to put the English Defence League in a more favorable light, although police have described the EDL as "a very significant threat, It's one I know the police service are taking very seriously, together with the Home Office and local authorities." At the same time he has tried to discredit their main opposition, Unite Against Fascism, which is supported by the Conservative prime minister for the U.K. as "left-wing". He has edit-warred on both articles and been blocked twice. His remarks to other editors are insulting:

• I feel that the people who want to undo the label do have a non neutral point of view
• I feel that considering that you are a self proclaimed Democratic socialist you are not credible position to make edits on this subject matter (the label of left wing) considering you are a self professed believer in left wing politics
• your are not editing from a NPOV
• as a teacher of secondary school students i hope you do not teach in the same way
• I feel that the people who want to undo the label do have a non neutral point of view

TFD (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

if edits are favourable or not is down to a matter of opinion and you could only come to such a conclusion on my so called "favourable" comments if you yourself also had an opinion on the matter which was unfavourable towards the Article when concerning the EDL being labelled as extreme etc. The facts of the matter are this, the article UAF's label being left wing is sourced and any edit war was conducted by all party's involved in the artilce and was not the sole responsibility of myself which has been deduced by the admin who has now locked the UAF article (see discussion on reason for lock on uaf).

The comments above made by myself are also taken out of context in most respects. you have taken my comments and not the reply comments by snowded, TFD, you have also not taken into account the fact that it is clearly documented that i wish only to be spoken to in an acceptable manner which all WP editors deserve and this is also clearly documented in my communications with Snowded. Johnsy88 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You want to watch these claims you make about admins, you ended up with egg all over your face when the article you claimed admin support for was deleted. In the "edit war" you reverted 4 times, no other editor went to more than two. You were in effect let off on a technicality; your "facts" have been rejected by a majority of editors on the RS notice board and you have consistently ignored WP:BRD.

I repeat my earlier request - provide diffs to support your statements above so that a response can be made. At the moment you are just making general accusations without supporting evidence which is disruptive. --Snowded 22:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian Church in Canada

Some one is removing important information from page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavi123 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

SeikoEn

• SeikoEn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and also user talk pages

User SeikoEn persistently breaks WP:Civility by insulting users he doesn't agree with and calling them “fascists”, as well as calling their edits vandalism, when it should be avoided. He was warned several times, but he doesn't change his behaviour.

Here is a small part of diffs with insulting other users: , , , , , here he calls the restoring of the consensus version of the article “vandalism”: .

He was told to changes his behaviour several times: Yesterday I warned him that if he continues his aggressive behaviour I'll report it to administrators: , and today he continues his insults: “you become more and more ridiculous”.

Please, have an influence on him. --Glebchik (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution