Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive77

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Izzedine is making argument personal, no matter how I phrase it.

Resolved

Gerardw (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine has made changes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without consensus, then when I question Izzedine about Izzedine's reasons, User labels me as being rude and pejorative. User posted a warning to my page and deleted my warning on user's page. This is not the first time user has deleted warning off user's talk page, see difference at User talk:Izzedine 01:55, 2009 November 27. THough I know Users are permitted to delete comments off their user pages, it still gets in the way of tallying up a user's tendency for losing neutrality. a problem this user clearly suffers from. Please assist. THanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"User labels me as being rude and pejorative"— please provide a diff for this, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this looks very overblown to me. Your only complaint against Izzedine seems to be that they gave you a {{uw-joke}} template on your talk page? However, you also gave them a {{uw-npov}} template, why do you think its less acceptable for Izzedine to template you then it is for you to template them?
I agree that the {{uw-joke}} template is one that could be very annoying, especially if your edits are made in good faith, but then, the same goes for the {{uw-npov}}. When you are in a content dispute, the answer is to discuss your concerns with the other party/ies, not to post templates on each others talk pages. The "uw-" templates are generally reserved for vandalism, not for good-faith attempts at article building. Another thing that is generally reserved for vandalism is WP:AIV, Abie, it wasn't very constructive to report Izzedine there. The first step in dispute resolution is to bring up your concerns with the other editor/s concerned (user warnings don't count as bringing up your concerns).
My advice is this:
Izzedine; I suggest that in future disputes your first action is to politely bring up your concerns with the other editors, try not to use user warning templates.
Abie the Fish Peddler; pretty much the same, I know that it can be extremely aggravating to receive a user warning template that isn't deserved, as I have in the past received such warnings. I suggest that instead of retaliating by posting another warning on the other users talk page you instead gently discuss the issue with them.
To both of you: I suggest that you leave the matter of the warnings behind you, and (if you want to) proceed to resolve the issue on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a polite and civil way.
Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

and try very hard to assume good faith, which admittedly is hard when in the middle of a content discussion you feel strongly about. Consider article WP:RFC or WP:THIRD to get assistance in coming to consensus on the content. Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved. I asked for other editors to give their perspectives. So far one has. And I was able to understand that the photograph Izzedine wanted was the best choice. Though I still think Izzedine is very quick to take things personally. I wish in the future Izzedine will keep the suspicion of ulterior motives out of the discussion. I have also learned that if an editor reports that I have been vandalizing, that doesn't mean that I have been vandalizing and I don't need to freak out. Thanks for your help. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Costas did not start his career as a porno narrator

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Gerardw (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi-

There are many things wrong with the Bob Costas wiki page. Under Occupation it says something inappropriate. And in the explanation of how his career began it says something else inappropriate.

please fix the problem and monitor it so it doesn't continue to be an issue.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.12.190 (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have come to the wrong place. SeeBiography of living persons. Please see WP:5P if you want to edit it yourself and then just go ahead and do it. I just had a look and it seems that was some vandal and has been corrected. Dmcq (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

I'm being continually being accused of being a sock puppet by one editor and would request that to be stopped

User Makrand Joshi [1]is personally attacking and harrassing me by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [2] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [3]

Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [4] He changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [5]

He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [6], here [7], here [8].

I had reported the user for edit warring here, [9] for which he responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and how pathetic and malicious I was.

I request you to tell him to not harass me using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 11:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Makrandjoshi, please use the Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case form for submitting evidence rather than posting accusations on talk pages. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Wifione, the result of the edit war report was that you failed to follow procedure and you are arguably the more disruptive at that article. In my mind, this calls into question your own civility. Did you offer an apology to Makrandjoshi after that? Gerardw (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Gerardw, thanks for your support. I'll point out that you missed out the most important line in the administrative finding that was but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion. Therefore I do not believe I owe Makrand Joshi an apology. If administrators believe I owe him/her one, I'll do it but will also refer this case once it is ended to oversight. I write one line from Wikipedia's policy on harrassment - :"Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". "A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable". and Lastly , "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

It is not acceptable that Makrand Joshi has the right to personally harrass and hound me off editing.

Kindly note I wish to transfer this case from here to the administrative noticeboard. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is my response.
  • I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment. I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own. Gererdw, I had initiated a formal SPI some months ago which returned the result "possible" with admins and others agreeing that there is a lot of similarity, but since the sockmaster had been inactive for a long time, there was no direct IP-based evidence yet. I see another sockpuppet returning User:Suraj845, and yesterday I raised concerns about it to User:Tiptoety an admin who had run check-user detected and blocked sockpuppets last year. And User:Tiptoety has said she'll keep an eye on it.
  • I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to. FWIW, wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin.
  • I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious. wifione has been forum-shopping against me on a continuous basis. And every time, the result goes in my favor. Even in the link above, when wifione talks about reporting me for edit-warring, he/she neglects to mention that the result of it - what I was doing was fine, and he/she is actually the more disruptive user. In the past, wifione raised the same point in 3 different noticeboards at the same time - really prodigious forum-shopping. And this forum shopping continues. Always targetted against me.
  • How is the phrase "pissed off" uncivil?
  • wifione's editing record speaks for itself. The user is continuously trying to whitewash The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, trying to get any negative or critical information removed. His/her edits, which some other editors and I have painstakingly gone through and reworded, always exaggerate some things and praise IIPM in words that the cited source never mentioned. wifione's agenda, IMHO, is to turn the article into an advertorial for IIPM and remove all negative information.
  • wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets. Pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets who have in the past threatened me with a lawsuit, a beating, attack and murder. So if I suspect someone of being a sock-puppet, I am going to call them on it. And not just call them sockpuppet, but also point out evidence for it. I have raised an SPI in the past, have followed up with the admin involved in that SPI yesterday. And if the sockpuppetry gets really disruptive, I will of course renew the SPI. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AzureFury -- Incivility

Stuck

AzureFury has become increasingly uncivil on the Iraq War talk page. His behavior has resulted in several disputes. An editor came to the talk page and stated their opinion that the article was not neutral.[10] They didn't list any specific reasons as to why they thought this, and this created a small dispute as to whether or not their POV claim was even legitimate. This dispute shortly led to the beginning of uncivil and bad faith comments by AzureFury: [11][12] The next part, long story short, was me letting them know that they were being uncivil -- and Azure claiming that doing so was a personal attack[13] although they were also confronted by another user about it as well.[14] I feel I civilly and clearly explained myself in an attempt to get them to understand that they were being unreasonable,[15], but their response was unnecessarily hostile.[16] Although I cited wp:civility to them, they ignored my argument and suggestions to read it, instead seemingly taking quotes out of wp:agf and wp:npa to defend their actions.

Not long after, another editor posted a new section on the talk page, raising a question between the usage of the words words "war" and "conflict".[17] AzureFury, despite the multiple clearly given warnings at the top of the page, responded by using the talk page as a forum for his view that the war is illegal.[18] Although I cited wp:TPNO to tell him that his comment was unacceptable for a talk page, and wp:TPO to let him know that it could be removed,[19] he refused to acknowledge his inappropriate comment, using the argument that wp:TPO didn't say anything about expressing opinions[20] (again, I had given him the direct link to the section that spells out inappropriate behavior on a talk page -- wp:TPNO). His refusal to heed the warnings directly led to another, long, drawn out dispute between AzureFury and User:Coldplay Expert, who was also asserting AzureFury's incivility. The argument between the two quickly became a personal political debate, although AzureFury explictly stated that since WP:BITE didn't apply to Coldplay Expert, they refuse to assume good faith and be welcoming (completely disregarding wp:civility).[21] The argument between the two continued until a third party had to step in and archive the entire section[22] and suggest dispute resolution. That section can be seen here. It seems clear that AzureFury, despite multiple warnings, is unfamiliar with wp:civility and talk page behavioral guidelines, and this has resulted in long disputes that disrupt the article and the talk page. I tried to deal with it myself, but they seem uninterested with familiarizing themselves with policy.--Abusing (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I am assuming that per the instructions above you have notified all users of this post. I have responded to the talk page of the article in question in an effort to resolve the dispute. I would note that it seems to me several parties are implicated here, so I wonder why you would single out a specific editor. Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This is all old news. This supposed "dispute" has been over for a couple days now. Oh, and I haven't once made a personal comment about another editor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's been over less than one day. And does this count as a personal comment? I think so... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really, I was referring to a policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, except I know Coldplay Expert, having come across him many times on Wikipedia (and I shall restate that I entered that argument unbiased and found both of you at fault), and he is hardly a troll. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I was thinking of "troll" more as the discussion we were in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Both of you were at fault. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please copy and paste my first comment that did not either attempt to discuss policy or discuss improving the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
An example would be Well, I also asked that you read the article so that you know what you're talking about. Additionally, calling another user a troll is uncivil; claiming you were referring to the policy doesn't make it less so. In my opinion both AzureFury and ColdplayExpert are crossing the boundary of civil behavior and Thejadfalcon's suggestion of taking a break is a good one. . Gerardw (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A, that is only part of my comment. B, that is me describing my own actions. Not sure how that's against policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My above statement contains links to several uncivil statements. This does not necessarily mean personal attacks. Coldplay Expert might have also acted uncivilly in the dispute that erupted, but the dispute was a result of AzureFury's failure to stop behaving that way when I first tried to tell him to stop. The problem is AzureFury's ongoing incivility on the talk page that has created several disputes, not just the one most recent dispute that has already been resolved.--Abusing (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol! One of your supposed "incivil" statements made by me is the word, "you" followed by a quote from another editor. You caught me! I am guilty of copy and pasting comments by other editors. The only other supposedly "hostile" statement is when I said Coldplay was tagging the article because it contradicted his sense of patriotism. And given that he has yet to find any POV issues besides the two that were addressed, I believe that is an accurate assumption, especially considering his comments about "bad guys." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to be a civil as humanly possible with this guy trying to provoke me. Oh and I just fond out about this a few minutes ago. It seems that no one told me about this.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What a victim.[23][24][25][26][27][28] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
what a saint.[29][30][31][32]--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I left a Talkback on your talk page when I made this comment. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OH sorry I guess that I missed it. Anyway back to the point. All of my "attacks" were purely defensive as AzureFury was insulting me IMO by saying that I get all of my POV concerns from FOX ect. THis had nothing to do with the article and trying to imporve it (which is why I came to the talk page in the first place). Also, I think that we both broke the 3RR as I added the POV template and he revoved it. And I added it again and he removed it agian and I added it agian...ect ect. I eventually gave up and someone elso added it to actuall sections where I posted some comments that proved my POV argument and well..it was reverted again. After that I took it to the talk page and the rest was history.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Where to start. First off, I never said that you got all your POV concerns from Fox news. You equated socialist views with anti-Bush statements, which is something I assumed only an avid viewer of Fox might do. Now let's get into your comments. What exactly did my year old block have to do with the article? What purpose was served in going through my history?[33] Tell me, how does calling me a jerk improve the article or approach consensus?[34] How does calling me a dick improve the article?[35] How are any of these comments "defensive"? Oh, and as for the supposed 3RR violation, this is trivially solved by looking into the page's history like so. I have exactly 1 "pure revert" with the other two deletions of your tag accompanied by edits to resolve the issues that you brought up. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Disputes are usually not a serious thing when they occur on the talk page. I didn't include any incivility from the heated personal dispute that occurred in my initial post. I don't think it needs to be included in this discussion. However, someone's behavior is leading to multiple disputes that are actually disrupting a talk page, and they don't seem interested in correcting it. That's why I posted this WQA. The persistent pattern of rudeness and hostility and a complete disregard for wp:civility is the problem. I really don't even know where it came from.--Abusing (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting quote from WP:CIVILITY: "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." What exactly was your reason for starting this discussion after the debate in question had ended? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you completely missed the multiple incidents of me requesting that you act civilly. Apparently you missed the multiple disputes you have gotten into. Apparently you missed the two paragraphs, complete with multiple diff tags for easy reference at the top of this discussion. And now, you actually accuse me of simply using the policy to attack you for some reason? Do you actually understand policy? It seems not. You defend arguments for your incivility by citing WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, a completely different policy. You defended your incivility by saying the content dispute is over. You apparently did not even familiarize yourself with what a WQA discussion is. You called someone a troll, and defended yourself by saying that you're referencing policy. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls is not policy. Calling someone a troll is not justified by any policy. Quite the opposite. You made a statement on the talk page saying Bush is a war criminal. I told you that that comment was inappropriate and could be removed. You responded by saying "There is nothing in WP:TPO that says, "editors can't express opinions." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)". In fact, it's WP:TPNO (which I also linked to) says that, but it's in the same guideline article. There are so many warnings at the top of the talk page, it should be common sense not to express your opinion on that page. That is why I started this discussion, you seemingly fail to understand behavioral policies, you're seemingly under the impression that I'm only trying to harass you for some reason, and I hoped some other editors other than myself might be able to tell you the same, and you might listen to them.--Abusing (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you've misunderstood both the purpose and literal meaning of my comments. 'Nuff said. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this dispute myself, so I can't comment specifically on this incident. But I will say that I have had previous unpleasant editing experience with AzureFury. I would concur with the comments about general high level of hostility, disrespectful discourse and overall talkpage disruption engendered by his/her edits. I summarize some of my concerns in this edit. I actually unwatchlisted the page concerned due in the main to AF's activities there. Based on my experience, I would certainly urge AF to consider the tone and tenor of his/her talkpage contributions and whether they really productive or in the spirit of a collaborative project. --Slp1 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • ColdplayExpert, AzureFury's behavior does not give you license to lose civility yourself, as your statement regarding your attacks being defensive seems to imply.
  • AzureFury, a review of your edits strikes me as consistently unnecessarily confrontational and often sarcastic, showing an overall pattern of lack of civility.
  • This is a non-binding mediation forum with no powers of enforcement so it only works if the involved parties wish to come an agreement; as of yet I'm not seeing indication that will happen here. I'll tag in progress to see if we can get more perspectives. Gerardw (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is pointless as there is no longer any content dispute. I don't see why the discussion was started in the first place. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion here is not about content, but about your communication and behaviour, (and those of other editors, apparently). With luck, you (and the others) will get some useful feedback from independent editors about how to improve your editing. That's the point.--Slp1 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good. Copy and paste my first sentence that was out of line. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll just point out that this response is a perfect example of what is often so disruptive about your editing. You demand other people do work for you, and then don't seem to register the information when they respond. In this case, multiple people have listed comments of concern that you have made. Nonetheless you made exactly this same demand to "copy and paste my first sentence...") above,[36] and Gerardw was kind enough to answer you.[37]. Did you miss his response? Didn't you already have enough examples of concerns in any case? Part of civility is carefully reading and respecting the contributions of other editors. Doing some checking and critical thinking yourself will move discussions forward much productivelyand civilly.--Slp1 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What I see is editors ignoring the personal attacks directed against me whilst saying that quoting other editors is unreasonable "hostility." I read every comment and looked at every dif. None of this has convinced me that my actions were unreasonable. Btw, Gerardw did not provide any quotes, only said that my comments were "unnecessarily confrontational," which is debatable. If you're unwilling to put in the effort necessary to copy and paste comments from the dispute in question, feel free to excuse yourself from this discussion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Strange that you would say this, given that the diff I gave you does contain a direct quote from you. Here it is again [38] so you can check. Unfortunately, your post above just proves my point about your failure to read and consider the posts of others, and the overall hostility of your edits. I actually see plenty of attention to the edits of others, and recognition by Coldplay, below, that his edits were inappropriate. What about you? Is it possible that you might have something to learn from comments of multiple editors that your communication could bear some improvement? --Slp1 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I provided a quote here [39]. Gerardw (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Unbelievable. This is my comment, that is unaddressed, immediately following that post, "A, that is only part of my comment. B, that is me describing my own actions. Not sure how that's against policy." You have the gall to accuse me of not reading others' comments? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So, you accept Gerardw did provide quotes now? I read your response. I'm sure everybody did. But claiming that quoting yourself exempts incivility is beyond needing a response; and the fuller context actually only makes things worse with "Well, I also asked that you read the article so that you know what you're talking about. I guess that's too much to ask." But that's it for me. Once again, I'm done.--Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright AzureFury, I'm just going to briefly run through some places where I think you behaved inappropriately, and then offer some thoughts and advice, if thats alright with you. These are not necessarily the only breachs of WP:CIVIL.
 You should remember that: "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;" is considered a breach of WP:CIVIL. By commenting "Eh, I've fed this troll enough. I'll stop", you provoked cold play by this comment, although the fact that cold play was provoked doesn't excuse his following comments, nor do his following comments excuse your taunt.
Secondly, your repeated assertions that Cold Play hadn't read the article were not particularly helpful in resolving the matter. Although I don't know whether or not cold play did or did not read the article, it was slightly pushing it to keep on asserting as such, regardless or whether he had or not.
Thirdly, your comments at Cold Play regarding his motives for bring up the issue where uncalled for, suggesting that he might only be concerned due to a feeling of patriotism, or that he might be motivated by political opinions, are both borderline WP:CIVIL concerns.
However, AzureFury, although there are points when you certainly could have behaved far better, I feel that overall, your conduct was keeping in-line with WP:CIVIL, save for a few specific comments. I think you should however be extremely careful about how you treat other editors in content disputes. Your aim should be to resolve the dispute, not inflame it, every comment you make, it may be worth sitting back and thinking "is this really going to help resolve the matter?" if not, then change the comment. Never lose sight of the goal of these disputes, which is to improve the article. People can get caught up in disputes and try to continue them for their own sake, be careful that you do not. Your taunting of Cold Play is also something worth thinking on, as is your general attitude when conducting these conflicts, remember that the other editor is most likely a good faith editor who genuinely believes that their suggestions will improve the article, please deal with them with a more polite disposition in future. Again, your overall your conduct hasn't been quite so bad as has been made out, however, you can still learn from it and improve. Thanks for your patience in reading this.
Cold Play, although it seems to have been played down here, your conduct wasn't exactly exemplary, and you can definitely improve upon it. AzureFury has been extremely patience and tolerant of your behaviour. Such comments as: "Well congrats you got your wish jerk" and "Your actions at this talk page alone proves that you can be a WP:DICK. Its plain and simple" aren't constructive, they are not polite and they most certainly don't help to resolve the dispute. I understand that you are fairly new to content disputes, however, you should be thankful to AzureFury for being so tolerant of your comments. Yes, you were definitely provoked, I've seen you around on wikipedia, and you've always struck me as a very happy and jovial editor, however it seems to me that when you were provoked you lost that cheerful manner. What I think you need to improve upon is your response when you believe yourself to have been provoked; do you respond with all guns blazing? Or do you play it cool and ignore the provocation, instead focusing on the matter at hand; the content dispute. Ignoring taunts is the best way to get around them, yes being taunted is provoking, however, you need to try and maintain a cool head at all times, and ensure that your comments are all in keeping with policy. I hope that you too can learn from this matter. Remember, you can chose to either learn from mistakes, or to make the same mistakes again, in this case, I trust you will endeavour to learn.
Thanks you to both of you for taking the time to listen. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion and advice, and it may not reflect what anyone else thinks, in short, ignore it if you want.
Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was about my assessment of the situation. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. There is no dount that what I said was also a Bad faith comment. However what really got me going was calling me a troll. Everyone here who knows me will know that I am anything but a troll. Yes I guess I act linke a cheerfull editor. It takes alot for me to lose it hetre (After all this is an all vouluntary project) but his comments were way out of line and I lost it. Yes you were right I should have been the bigger person and ignored his comments and moved on the the next editor that could have helped. However me admiting my mistakes does not forgive AzureFury from his comments. You hurt my feelings. Im not a "troll" or some crazy right-winger. I only thought that the article had this gerneral feeling of POV. I should have listed specific points before this broke out into a fight.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
PS I have read the article but I never got to post anything as we started to drift off topic and into purely party lines. (Politics...ugh I hate it)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 12:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently nothing good will come out of this. Why do we even bother :(--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think that? In my opinion something good can come out of this, so long as the involved parties (including yourself) are willing to learn from this. Yes, you made mistakes and behaved badly, as did others, but if you listen carefully to the constructive criticism then you can learn and improve in future. If you do so, then that is, in my opinion, a very positive outcome. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I am listening and learning from this. But AzureFury does not seem to get the point. He refuses to acept that he contributed tot he problem. Thats what I meant.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Azure, have you gathered anything from anyone else's comments about yourself yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusing (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've learned that I was extremely patient and did not breach civility. :) AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Since when is December 8th oposite day? I forgot to mark my calender! And to be honest. No you were neither of these. You attacked me and provoked me to the point that I blew it. Obviously it seems like you see that you were wrong in no way. This is going no where.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous statement. Do you really want a list of your uncivil statements?

  • "Uhhh, how about you read over the article, find some issues, and then add the template. You can't just call the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism."
User:Smartse concurred with your opinion. But they did it in a civil way -- a good example is simply "Yes the tag shouldn't be added unless some specific problems are first mentioned here."
You're saying you don't like my word choice. WP:CIVIL specifically mentions that editors should not easily take offense unless it is clear that offense was intended. That is not the case here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

--no response----Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement you were referring to, based on the link you included, is "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." An empty defense.
My response to your "na uh" is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Ya huh"? You're referencing WP:no personal attacks. A totally different policy. I didn't accuse you of making personal attacks. I simply accused you of being generally uncivil based on several comments of yours. --Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:CIVIL: "Incivility consists of personal attacks..." The policies basically say the same thing. Either you see the connection between WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK or you don't. I'm not going to explain it to you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "A POV dispute involves identified issues. There are none. Maybe I should just go to any article I don't like and say, "this article is POV" and tag it? I think I'll head over to John McCain and tag it for POV because it makes McCain look like a good guy...or a bad guy. I haven't decided yet. But I certainly feel that way. Then maybe I'll read it some day. I might find an issue worth correcting. Maybe not. The important thing is that I disputed the neutrality and thus there is a POV dispute."
The rudeness and sarcasm was completely unnecessary and uncivil.
It is not rude and the sarcasm serves to illustrate the ridiculousness of tagging without issues presented. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It is rude because of the sarcasm. It's not your job to illustrate the ridiculousness of anything anyone is saying. If you want to dispute anything, it should be done with mature, polite discussion, not sarcasm. That's what makes it uncivil.--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, it absolutely is my job to illustrate the ridiculousness of a ridiculous argument. That's what we do on a talk page: debate. We use logic, and applying another's argument to a similar situation is an effective way of refuting it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "WP:AGF says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." An editor tagging a whole article without reading it is evidence to the contrary."
Basically, trying to give me an excuse to assume bad faith?
Correct. "Bad faith" in this case being defined by unobjective editting. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The "unobjective editing" you refer to isn't vandalism. It's not a hostile, damaging edit. It's not removing content. It's not injecting POV statements into the article. If it did any of those things, you would be well in your rights to assume bad faith, because the evidence clearly shows it's not a good faith edit. However, it was simply a harmless template. From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." In other words Azure, you can still criticize someone's actions while assuming good faith, but you can't assume bad faith unless there is specific evidence of malicious intent (as in obviously trying to harm the article). So go ahead, criticize away, but don't assume bad faith based on someone putting a harmless POV template at the top of the article. You can think Coldplay is wrong, but there's no evidence that they were trying to harm the article.--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Never called it vandalism. Red herring. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "That just makes the war illegal and Bush a war criminal, it doesn't change the fact that it is a war."
A blatant violation of WP:TPNO
Quote WP:TPNO on this matter please. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." Not that I expect people to seek out WP:TPNO, but there are several separate warnings at the top of the very talk page advising against doing so. First: "This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions on the Iraq War, or personal political viewpoints or statements of any kind. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Second: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Third: "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here." --Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It was one sentence. Hardly a soap box. Further, that one sentence answered an editor's question about whether or not the conflict should be called a "war." Was it necessary to include my opinion? Probably not. Was it a huge deal that I did? Certainly not. People express their opinions in talk pages all the time. You should've just let it go as the other editor did.
  • "Well, I also asked that you read the article so that you know what you're talking about. I guess that's too much to ask."
Aggressive sarcasm
An accurate summary of my actions and an accurate assessment considering that he never read the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, it's the way you said it that made it uncivil. "I guess that's too much to ask" could have been left out. Sarcasm is completely unnecessary when engaging in a mature discussion.--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend accurate statements or let you nit pick my wording. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "So no, I'm not going to be welcoming and I'm not going to assume good faith when you tag an article you haven't even read."
A complete admission that you're not going to be civil or assume good faith.
A complete admission to not assuming good faith on the basis that there is evidence to the contrary. "Not being welcoming" is not necessary because he is already "inside" Wikipedia. He is not a newcomer so I do not need to welcome him. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, evidence to the contrary? They brought their complaint directly to the talk page and simply posted a template at the top. They didn't harm the article at all. There is no evidence that they are making malicious edits. You're not wrong to criticize them doing so, but you're wrong to assume bad faith. As for being welcoming, fine. "Be welcoming" doesn't apply. The link at the top for "be welcoming" goes to WP:BITE, and since they're not a newcomer, you can disregard it. How about the link that says Be polite. You don't even have to read WP:CIVIL, you just have to read "be polite". Is it that hard to be polite? How about general Etiquette: "assume good faith" (something you failed to do), "Be polite, please." -- Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written—text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. (something you failed to do), "Work towards agreement." (something you failed to do), "Try to treat others with dignity.", "Be prepared to apologize.", "Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war." Seeing a pattern yet?--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing a pattern that all the edits that you're complaining about are undisputed in their accuracy, and are all related to improving the article. Coldplay's are not. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you deny being uncivil?--Abusing (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For space concerns, I'm going to respond in your comments rather than copy and pasting them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's review. Abusing, Slp1, ColdplayExpert,Thejadefalcon and myself have outlined our opinion that, loosely paraphrasing, AzureFury's interactions are less than civil could be improved. Spitfire indicates they fall within civility but could be improved.[[40]]. AzureFury's opinion is that he did not breach civility.[[41]]. At this point it seems unlikely that further dialog here will come to a consensus. Perhaps as we go forward AzureFury will choose to keep in mind that although he considers his actions fine they rub others the wrong way. Or perhaps not. Regardless the best approach is to remain civil and, if AzureFury exhibits behavior the community finds unacceptable seek other means of dispute resolution. Gerardw (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It indeed appears AzureFury chooses ignore the consensus that his edits have been uncivil and continues to place the blame on Coldplay Expert as of 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC) despite the fact that they have already admitted wrongdoing, apologized and withdrawn from the discussion. I think this is a case of Azure not wanting to lose. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and consider yielding to consensus. I'm sure you can respect consensus, Azure, can't you? Otherwise, it seems this discussion isn't going to resolve the issue, and I find that disappointing, but hopefully it will result in Azure recognizing the fact that others find his behavior uncivil and hopefully he will be more careful about being civil in the future, regardless. The discussion has gone stale, so I suppose there's nothing more to say, other than one request for AzureFury: I, along with others, find many of your comments rude, disruptive, hostile and aggressive. I will put all that behind me, and from what I can tell, you're a good editor. I simply request that in the future, you try to be polite and friendly on talk pages. Please be respectful and courteous to other editors who come to the article trying to help, even if you don't agree with them. Treat them like a respected colleague. Your comments can offend people and erupt into disputes. Even if someone has no idea what they're talking about, it's best to politely tell them why they're wrong, instead of potentially insulting them. Furthermore, please consider "forgiving and forgetting" about your dispute with Coldplay Expert, as they have apologized for their behavior. If you can continue to be reasonable on the talk page you won't hear about it anymore from me. If you cannot do this, know that I will not hesitate to attempt other methods of dispute resolution in the future.
Many thanks to the neutral parties who contributed to the discussion.--Abusing (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Coldplay Expert has announced his withdrawal from this thread in an e-mail conversation with me. He has apologised, admitted he did wrong as well and I believe this thread now no longer concerns him and suggested he pull out now as a precaution in case he loses his temper again. If he is needed back, then please post a message on his talk page. Otherwise, I think it would be best if he puts this behind him. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Pots and kettles arguing over obscurity in a discussion that extends back a long, long time and in which the same participants have had extensive interaction. No need for Hiding to come to WQA for something he can resolve at NFict. Eusebeus (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have asked Gavin.Collins on numerous occasions to refrain from personalising his posts, yet he cannot seem to refrain from doing so. Please can someone neutral review this post, [42]. Given that I wrote Wikipedia:Independent sources almost 3 and a half years ago, I find a statement like "I am glad that Hiding has now acknowledged that independent sourcing is a necessary..." to be unnecessary and patently false. I am tired of constantly having to defend myself from these sorts of attacks. Wikipedia is not supposed to descend to this level of discourse. Hiding T 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty mild, and certainly seems on a par with And anyone who doesn't understand policy just needs it explained to them. If they still don't understand it, simply continue to explain it. Just like I do with you. which Hiding posted here [43]. So at this point I'd suggest both editors try to focus on the content and not make these kinds of references to each other. Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

offensive language by kwamigwami on Burushaski talk page

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Drive-by accusation without merit and the target editor was never notified, itself a gorss civility violation. Let's stop further discussion per WP:DFTT. Eusebeus (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The person using the pseudonym kwamigwami has called me a "crackpot" and "nationalist" in the talk page of the Burushaski article. I believe people like this individual should not be allowed to have a higher editorial role and I demand an apology. SignedIlijacasule (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ilijacasule

I copy the evidence:(quote kwami)

He *is* a crackpot. Fringe theories may get some mention, but they don't deserve half the biblio. Most linguists think Dene-Caucasian is nonsense, but there are at least a number of linguists working on it. No-one follows Chashule, despite the fact that it would be major news if he were correct, and would be picked up by newspapers and general science journals. The only reason he deserves any mention at all is that he somehow got himself published in a reputable journal. Pick the most representative of his pubs, and stick with that. kwami (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

and further:

Casule's also made bizarre comments about Paleo-Balkans that appear to be motivated by nationalism rather than science, so his credibility isn't very high. kwami (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilijacasule (talk • contribs)

You must notify kwamikagami (talk · contribs) of this report if you want any response. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

User: Eeekster - making accusations/bad faith assumptions

Eekster has made accusatory accusations towards me, threatening me with being blocked, as well as assuming bad faith edits on my part. I edited what I saw to be very off topic and rambling passages on the entry for the film 'Can't Stop The Music'. My edits were then reverted by another user, who also assumed bad faith, and I did revert her edit once. An admin then reverted my edit and I was essentially accused by that editor and Eekster of vandalism and warned. Eekster and the editor also said that I did not give a reason for the edits I made, but I did and included them, so this is baffling. Eekster took it further by saying that I appeared to be engaged in an "edit war" base on the one and only reversion I performed. When I attempted to discuss the issue, he declined stating that I should "stop complaining" and raise the issue on the entry's talk page. I wrote back stating that my issue was with his accusatory tone, and judgment. I feel that this person does not have the proper judgment to be performing any manner of administrator duties. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

  • Note: I have notified Eeekster of this post - something that you probably should have done.  7  05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Eekster was right, you should stop complaining and raise the issue on the article's talk page. You should have done that after your initial edits were reverted, rather than simply undoing the revert -- that's the beginning of an edit war. Looie496 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would have notified him, but my earlier attempt to discuss it was rebuffed, and before he, and another editor were essentially "ganging up" with multiple warnings which were overkill. The issue isn't the edit, but Eekster's undiplomatic and accusatory behavior, and judgment. So the "issue" has no place on that page. I made good faith edits and removed information that was irrelevant to the article, and I did revert what I considered to be vandalism, and for that I had two people issue warnings. Look at my history. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have reverted the edit, but should the other editor have not deleted mine without some discussion? Could they have taken those same steps. Anyone who sees what was deleted could see why it was, even if they do not agree with it, and nobody fair minded would view it as vandalism.

Eekster also stated that I did not give a reason for the edits, but I did and they are plainly there! Do you see a problem with him not even checking but accusing me of not stating a reason? Is that O.K.? Does one reversion really justify multiple warnings from two different people?

And why would I contact him when his behavior lead me to believe he was going to block me and abuse his power as the other admin essentially did, but then later removed his warning.

Is it just possible that people on Wikipedia who have privileges sometime abuse them or go overboard sometimes? An edit that someone does not care for isn't vandalism.


Eekster also issued me a warning after another administrator was dealing with it, and after the one edit:

"Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Can't Stop the Music, you will be blocked from editing. "


Continue to??? Can he explain that? I never "blanked" anything out, I had already stopped, and another Admin was already talking to me. What was Eekster's place here? Is this favoritism for the other editor?? Two admins for one reversion? And then multiple warnings?


Deleting off topic tangents is not "Vandalism", and what has happened here is I was accused, and treated very disrespectfully for no good reason. I am sincere that Eekster should be watched with his authority. All I can think of is the character Barney Fife, who abuses the little power he has. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC))


Please be patient and look at your edit here. You seem to have deleted contents which were referenced. And while removing those contents, you did not leave a summary. This is where you invited our attention. I did give you a last warning but then I withdrew it because I felt that you did those edits in good faith. So the best thing here is to create a new account for yourself and start editing Wikipedia. And do not forget to provide edit summary (important while removing referenced contents). I think this will cheer you up.. So anyway, happy editing :)
And one more thing, we are not administrators; we are rollbackers.  arun  talk  07:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The edits were explained in the article history [[44]] and they were good edits, removing extraneous material from the article. The issue is 75.69.241.91 made 4 edits and the last one was a minor deletion and that one didn't have have a summary on it. I know the rollbacks were good faith attempts to prevent vandalism but this wasn't vandalism, it was editing. It would be a nice conciliatory gesture if the warnings on 75.69.241.91's talk page were struck through. Gerardw (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done..Removed those warnings... But I will keep the warnings for this edit as it was removal of referenced contents, which he must had explained in the talk page of the article before removing.  arun  talk 

User:HaeB - edit warring

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – WQA can't accomplish anything in cases like this. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen User:Stephan Schulz User:Atmoz User:Apis O-tang User:William M. Connolley - have also continued to edit war to keep out notable criticism of realclimate. Several of them are administrators and or mediation cabal members. They show no interest in compromise as they seem to stretch wikipedia rules to hold critics to a different set of standards than those offering praise in the article. User:HaeB has twice reverted dispute tags on the article.[45][46]

It's expected that you notify editors on their talk page if you post an alert here. Diffs provided don't indicate incivility. Discussion should continue on article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is 2 years worth of discussion on the talk page already. The same users continue to defend the page from criticism. I'm wondering if there is a COI as at least one of those editors already admitted to being a former contributor. It is almost like their full time job is to watch climate change articles. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
The WQA process is not suitable for multi-editor issues of this sort. The only way to accomplish anything here is either WP:RFC or Arbcom. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

User:Coffee

Resolved
 – User has agreed to make an effort at being "less of an ass" in the future. No need to continue this. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is what has prompted me to start this. User:Coffee's conduct is rude and inconsiderate. In fact, he has even said that he intends on continuing this sort of behavior in the future.[47] This kind of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and needs to be resolved... The Thing Merry Christmas 14:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I can't see were Coffee has broken WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA anywhere within that discussion. Its possible that his general attitude might have been wanting, however I can't see that he has been rude. Please provide specific quotes/diffs, as I seem to have missed your point.
However, I can't help but notice some insulting comments made in regard to him, such as:
"Coffee, to be honest, you're acting like a jerk"
"You're being mean. [...] you brand yourself as an individual of great and unyielding spite."
"Stop being a dick"
It looks more to me like Coffee is more a "victim" than a "perpetrator" here. Admins have no more leniency within policy than any other user, but it doesn't look to me like Coffee has broken any policy here. Again, please provide some quotes/diffs of where you found Coffee to be rude.
Kind regards, (and happy christmas to you too) SpitfireTally-ho! 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I, with all due non respect, don't respect your opinion is uncivil as far as I'm concerned. [[48]] (Something weird going on with the history, not sure why I'm getting a bunch of diffs in one edit?)Gerardw (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It was copy pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ucucha. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is at least 1 more diff regarding his conduct...: "@Jusdafax Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking". Also, at Gerardw, Coffee moved the discussion to the RfA's talk page. this is what you're looking for. The Thing Merry Christmas 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its a comment that is not particularly becoming and is unlikely to gain him much support, however, it is not uncivil by policy. There's no explicit breach of civility from Coffee here. Also, please don't just go through his contribs looking for incriminating material, everyone makes mistakes, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Coffee: the diff provided, whilst not uncivil by policy, isn't polite nor constructive. I suggest, respectfully, that you refrain from similar comments in future, its easy enough to get the same point across without causing upset. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
What purpose does I, with all due non respect serve other than to belittle another editor? See direct rudeness. I don't understand what is meant by uncivil by policy ... it's a judgment call, achieved by consensus like everything else. Gerardw (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"Pull your head out of your ass" and "I, with all due non-respect, don't respect your opinion" are not civil statements. Coffee was pissed and allowed his emotions to enter into the discussion. He does this often and he won't see the need to apologize for it in this instance either. He also has enough of a following here that nothing can be done about it, and incivility is a tough thing to gain consensus on to begin with. However, this isn't the most awful thing in the world. There are many editors who skirt the bounds of civility and probably violate it regularly, subjective a judgment as it is. I'd suggest growing some semblance of a thick skin if you plan on surviving here. Dismiss pettiness as just that. The best reaction is none at all. Nothing is more defeating than an unrequited provocation. Equazcion (talk) 20:29, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have never interacted with Coffee before, so am not part of his "following", to be honest i see very little evidence of a following at the discussion linked by Thing. I agree that Coffee's behaviour is not good, particularly of an admin, however, it appears to be within the bounds of policy, yes, he can and should think about improving upon his attitude if he wishes to retain a sense of community trust in him. However, that said, some, not all, but some, of the people who have interacted with Coffee should seriously think about removing the planks from their own eye's before worrying about the splinter in their brothers (see quoted comments above). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Coffee is what he is, just another know-it-all kid who should never have been made an administrator; but he was, and now we have to live with the consequences of the "admin for life" culture that is destroying wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This just proves the point of my comment above; referring to another user as a "know-it-all kid" in a disparaging way is not polite. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Look. I have had no experiance with Coffee whatsoever. (other than the fact that we both reqularly participate in the RFA's) But calling him a know-it-all kid is rude and ageist. Im tired of people thinking that minors on wikipedia are bad. The simple answer is if minor were to stop helping with the project alltogether. Then theis site would fall into disrepair. While his actions may not have been a good example of WP:CIVIL you cant blame them on his age. Lots of amazing editors (like User:Juliancolton) are minors and are a great benefit to the project as a whole.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Spitfire. I do not like to see one of our Admins publicly belittled, or held up to ridicule, or to be demeaned in any way. Calling Coffee, another know-it-all kid, mean, a jerk, a dick, a prick, etc., by numerous editors was not showing an Admin. due respect. Nor am I calling on him to resign. I certainly do not want this to turn into a lynch mob. Yet I do have concern about some of Coffee's remarks i.e.

  • I, with all due non respect, don't respect your opinion. --Coffee
  • I wasn't being sarcastic Ed. Ret.Prof is not someone who's opinion I take into consideration, and I know several people who agree.--Coffee
  • I don't know where some of you get off on the "civility" crap, but saying what my opinions are is not uncivil. Please stop trying to protect Ret.Prof's feelings and move on. --Coffee
  • Talking does not require the tools. Go run along and try to "recall" someone else now. --Coffee
  • News flash, I plan on continuing to be blunt, I don't "represent the site", and guess what: I'm not going to resign anytime soon. --Coffee
  • Don't lie, you personally hope that tomorrow I will block someone and then get blocked by someone else. Hate to break it to you, but my commentary doesn't affect my administrative decisions. --Coffee
  • TTTSNB, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, so the more people who comment on my words, makes no difference to me. . . --Coffee
  • You are conducting yourself in a dishonourable manner. By your actions you brand yourself as an individual of great and unyielding spite. Crafty (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) You hit the nail on the head. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh jeez way to blow it out of proportions. I've said much worse, and probably will again in the future. Stop making this sound so profound. I expect to be able to use my tools just as easily tommorrow as I did today. --Coffee

Now I am not saying comments like "Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking" are uncivil. Nor has Coffee hurt my feelings. Quite frankly in the real world I have been called worse, by better people. But when Admins behave like this it does hurt Wikipedia. This project depends on volunteers and donations. If Admins and Crats adopt the Coffee standard, we will have a problem. Coffee you know you can do a better job as an admin . . . One that we can all respect and admire - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comment entirely, and I also call on Coffee to attempt to improve, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wasn't really attempting to call for his to resignation. It was more of pointily drawing attention to the bad connection of admin and his comments. The "stop being a dick" quote, which was mine, was meant in the spirit of WP:SPADE, not to be incivil. Coffee, please reread your comments before posting them. There is absolutely no need to cut other editors down the way you have been doing. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
SPADE is an essay, however, I'll qoute from it anyway: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks.", kind wishes SpitfireTally-ho! 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Bahh, essays >.< (signing out for the evening)
  • Let's cut to the chase. Coffee summed it up perfectly when he said "I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, so the more people who comment on my words, makes no difference to me". He believes that his winning of the RfA popularity contest (who cares when) gives him carte blanche to act like a prick. Just the way it is with administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's not let this get out of hand. There are a lot of good admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe Giles from Buffy summed it up perfect with (and I'm paraphrasing here) "When I want your opinion, Malleus Fatuorum, I'll... I'll never want your opinion." That was an incredible stupid and generalising statement. Yes, let's get rid of all of our admins. Bye bye, Coffee, Xeno, J.delanoy, Beeblebrox and all the others. By the consensus of Malleus Fatuorum, you've all been desysopped. There, Malleus Fatuorum. Now we can see how long it is before Wikipedia collapses in on itself. I'm guessing two weeks. For a start, read what you typed:
  • Coffee: "I'm not trying to win a popularity contest..."
  • You: "He believes that his winning of the RfA popularity contest..."
Yeah, that makes sense. I know I'm being snarky and bitey, but that was a moronic post you made. I don't know who Coffee is and I haven't caught anything but the highlights here. I don't know if he's being a dick or not, but that statement practically confirmed you as one. Now, can we please get back to the editor at hand? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You're not being "snarky and bitey", you're being an idiot. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Well backed up. Would read again. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In response to your long comment earlier, Ret.Prof, where you say "I do not like to see one of our Admins publicly belittled, or held up to ridicule, or to be demeaned in any way." -- Admins aren't entitled to any less public scrutiny than other editors; I'd say the opposite, actually. Anyone, admins included, have to earn our "due respect"; they're not inherently entitled to it, at least not any more than anyone else. Pointing out the respect that the implied "office" of Administrator is due, as an opposition to arguments brought against one, is a non-starter. If you want to say people in this discussion are using terms that no one should be using on Wikipedia to refer to any other editor, that might instead have a chance of being a valid point. Equazcion (talk) 22:37, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Of course you are right. I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am a very blunt person, I haven't and don't plan on changing that. There's no need to beat around the bush, of what I think. Sadly people are hating something they should like, being honest. Ret.Prof is someone (as I've stated before) who's opinions I don't respect. I don't think it's uncivil to state that, it's more of plain honesty. Just like I have no problem saying that I have no respect for TTTSNB or Malleus. TTTSNB was immature enough to get the boot from freenode, he was k-lined there. Malleus, well lets just say a lot of people don't respect his opinion, for many reasons; and for anyone to be talking about "civility", he is the last person anyone would listen to about that, considering his history. Could have I acted better? Yes. But I see no reason to apologize for stating my honest opinions. In my opinion, I didn't breach the lines of civility in this discussion, and haven't breached those lines yet. If I ever do, I would of course apologize. But using profanity (as I did with Jusdafax), or simple honesty (as I did with Ret.Prof), is not being uncivil. Respectfully, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between being blunt and being a prick. I personally hold an opinion of you that, in honesty, goes about six miles past the lines of WP:NPA, but I don't say that because simply thinking something ("being honest") and typing it out loud in a blunt manner for all to see are two completely separate things. Try to at least pretend to possess some self-restraint and maturity. Tan | 39 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well at least I can say that everyone who has posted here "rebuking" me, I don't hold in very high regards. (With exception of maybe Ed) I like the fact that Tan, while trying to tell me to be civil here, basically called me a prick. I think that my actions here have been much more mature and civil than anyone attempting to rebuke me for them. Regards, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be your way of communicating, so I thought I'd try it. Your actions have been far, far from "mature and civil", in fact, they've been completely immature and totally incivil. Tan | 39 22:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pull your head out of your ass, Coffee. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • It's likely futile at this point to ask that we all tone it down a notch. I've seen folks get blocked for less, and I've seen others speak more rudely without raising any eyebrows. Some folks tend to get overly sensitive about some things, and some folks can be known to speak rather bluntly. Is it fair? Nope. But life isn't always fair either. I don't see any blocks coming at this point, and hopefully there won't be any need for them here. If a couple folks don't get along - then perhaps just avoiding each other would avoid any further escalation here. "Honesty" and "Nice" don't always go hand-in-hand, but let's all try our best to at least be respectful, it's the only way this project is going to work properly.

— Ched :  ?  22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Equazcion - you may want to think that last remark)

    • Oh I'm sorry, Ched. Was that last remark offensive? Should I not have made it? If others agree I'll apologize for it. Equazcion (talk) 23:01, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • So Coffee now directs his venom towards me, because he doesn't like the truth. God help wikipedia with administrators like him in charge. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a mistake that Arbcom resysopped Coffee without an RFA, after he shared his admin password with a non-admin? I have been on good terms with him, but I have noticed his incivility has been creeping up and up over the past few weeks. I say this as somebody who considers him a "wiki friend". He needs to tone it down. Majorly talk 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Hopefully my last comment - Ok I'll admit my actions have not been the best, they haven't been thought out enough. Have they been honest? Yes. Have they been the kindest they could be? No. I'll take note to not be such an ass. But I must mention that when so many people jump on me at once, I tend to only get more defensive. If anyone would be so kind, it would be nice next time if someone saw one of my actions as rebukable, that they sent me a kind email. If you would take that into note, I'd probably respond a lot better. Now I'm going to go back to editing. Cheers, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So why have you become increasingly abusive over the last few weeks? Because you're a hormonal teenager? A regular editor would have been blocked for your behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No (well I don't know if hormones are off), I've been under a bit of real life stress. I sadly can't go into it any further. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Come on guys! Coffee said, "I'll take note to not be such an ass." What more can we ask. He does have a lot of good points too - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I think you just earned back like 200% of your respect. You are the only person who should have been offended by my comments, yet you have been amazingly civil, and understanding. I applaud you Ret.Prof, even if I don't agree with everything you say. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum, your comment saying Because you're a hormonal teenager? is way out of line. That deserves a warning in of itself. Dont try to point out the splinter in another editor's eye when you yourself have a log in yours.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Need assistance

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – edit warring, not wikiquette, referrred Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:98.197.181.195_reported_by_User:gerardw_.28Result:_.29 Gerardw (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

User:Sdsds - Assuming bad faith

Resolved
 – Tensions have been alleviated independently

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

User:65.41.234.238 and Saturday Night Live

User:Mainly.generic started a discussion about this situation, and I once again explained why I deleted the notes, no matter how interesting they might have been. At first I was in a slight disagreement with User: 71.77.17.46 about the matter but after s/he backed off, User talk:65.41.234.238 came out of nowhere and started arguing to the point that I now can’t tell if s/he is against removing the notes or against me personally. Mainly.generic then came up with a very good proposal about how we can possibly improve the articles, and after I commented on it, 65.41.234.238 completely and unnecessarily picked it apart, and as I said before, it seems like s/he is doing so because it has something to do with me; it doesn’t even seem to be about the articles anymore. [49]

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

I have added a note on 65.41.234.238’s talk page about this discussion, informing involved parties should be done when starting an alert here.
Anybody is allowed to come along and discuss changes on the talk page and previous consensus can be changed. In fact changing an article is often a good way of bringing in more people to discuss a change. Looking at the history I believe 65.41.234.238 has acted civilly and I would question why you have to talk about another editor as having a tantrum when they disagree with you. There was some lack of assume good faith by 65.41.234.238 in the bit about wanting a separate article for each episode but I think you had contributed to a lack of respect and trust by then. I think it would be better to concentrate on the subject and as far as possible and try avoiding commenting on other editors. Dmcq (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
COMP did notify the anon, you were looking at their "user page" Dmcq, not their talk page. I have tagged User:65.41.234.238 for deletion. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how I got there? that was very stupid of me, thanks, added a strikeout above, sorry. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed a reference in another editor's text in case anyone else falls over this. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me the personalization started here [[50]] with COMPFUNK2/American Metrosexual's comment. Gerardw (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Commenting on the subject is what I've been trying to do. And Dmcq, I don't understand why you think I had a lack of trust -- I mean, I literally don't understand what you mean. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
did you even bother to read is not commenting on the subject, it's implying another another editor is lazy or something else not real positive. Gerardw (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after seeing this comment, I got suspicious as to why the only users that seem to be challenging what I say are anonymous IPs, and after doing a whois check, I discovered that this new IP is coming from the exact same location as the original IP that disagreed with me, and the new IP just happened to start editing SNL-related articles in question after the 71 IP stopped. Is there some sockpuppetry or SPA nonsense going on? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If they were the same person why would it make any difference to your arguments? Have the two IPs acted in suppport of each other on a proposal or something like that? I haven't seen any evidence of improper conduct even if they were the same person. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you take it to WP:SPI if that's your suspicion. WQA is for outstanding civility matters, of which I see very little evidence. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I have never claimed that 71.77.17.46 and 75.178.178.212 are different editors, and if American Metrosexual disagrees with that he should show us the diffs in which I claimed to be two different editors. My IP changes sometimes beyond my control. I fully acknowledge that I have used two IPs because I had no choice. What I do not acknowledge is some personal issue with American Metrosexual; he seems to not want anyone to challenge his ideas and takes personal offense when they do so. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say that's not what I'm doing? If I am taking any personal offense, like I stated before, it's because I feel I am being attacked, not my idea (there is a difference). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack, I respectfully suggest that you respond to the anon's comments on the level which they were made; within a content dispute, rather than treating them like personal attacks, which they are not. The anon probably had no intention of attacking you. kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If that's really what you think, then you missed this entire discussion. And Gerardw, did you not see that the IP said something to me first?
I think it's time for me to take a wikibreak because it's extremely unfair for people to treat me like I'm acting in bad faith and refusing to even consider that I might be making a valid point. All I'm trying to do is help. (And why are you always against me, Spitfire?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against you on principal. I've very clearly explained to you the reason why I disagree with you, and its not because I make a point to oppose you on everything. I'm sure that you aren't acting in bad faith, however, just because your intent isn't malicious doesn't automatically make you correct. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
PS, the linked discussion was over half a year ago, and I didn't specifically come to this discussion because you were involved, but have been active in WQA for the last couple of weeks. Furthermore, my comments on this matter were made from a neutral point of view, and I haven't been holding any past matters against you, nor will. I hope you can return the favour and not hold them against me. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I see where one 65.41.234.238 23:37 backed up 71.77.17.46 but it doesn't seem a point where people would bother with sockpuppeting.
As to being personal could you point to where the IP said something to you first? I will go through the discussions thee and say where I thought they started becoming personal:
  • With 71.77.17.46 22:08, 5 December 2009 . IP says "and your argument is lame." and says why they think that. You come back "did you even bother to read WP:TRIV?" which is a very serious escalation. Later on you have things like "Sneaking it into the individual season articles is the same thing. (BTW, it appears that the only person that seems to disagree with this is you.)" with no provocation at all that I can spot. When they respond complaining "What's your point? That there is a consensus in favor of removing notes sections when two people favor it? Or that your opinion is more important than mine?" you say "Okay, I think you need to calm down" and "You seem to be having a tantrum" which very definitely turns the whoile business personal.
  • With . 65.41.234.238 23:37, 6 December 2009 . They start with "I agree with 71.77 in the respect that while I agree with Compfunk in part to clean up the notes, we shouldn't get rid of all the notes." then "Can we come to an agreement that will be agreeable on both parts? (combining our two points of view?". You respond with "My point was simple; the notes were trivia. I used the AfD link above to easily explain why they were deleted before (by an admin, remember) and then later by me, but it seems like the 71 IP doesn't get it because s/he doesn't want to get it." They respond with "Metro, 71 IP doesn't want to get it?? It's you who doesn't want to answer his question. How is listing the songs peformed by a musical guest "random", "disorganized" "trivia"? The question has been asked several times. And, by the way, you just made another personal attack". To which you respond "Oh, my God, will y'all stop?". And it rapidly degenerates from there to where you say "I never said listing musical guests was random. And by the way, information is supposed to be acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines, not yours. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL because you're getting worked up over nothing." That is about the point where I would say you have lost respect and trust of 65.41.234.238.
Overall I think you would be much better off as I said before just trying harder to concentrate on the points about the article. And Wikipedia isn't that important. If you see yourself about to write to somebody asking them to cool down, instead delete that sentence and go and have a cup of coffee, try forcing a smile or whatever it is you do to think pretty thoughts. If they aren't outright vandals they're probably trying to do something useful. In the balance of things one negative comment costs at least three and possibly more positive ones by my reckoning, so try and find something positive to say if anything. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to come to Metrosexual's defence. All throughout this process I've tried to keep things civil, but goddamn, it's getting hard. Tensions started when Metro edited Saturday Night Live (season 35), removing the show notes. This came at odds with existing editors, as it was a complete 180 compared to existing processes. A problem inherent with all Saturday Night Live articles is a major excess of trivia (on the Saturday Night Live cast page we have had people add the 'tallest castmembers'. Why?!). Metro tried to remove this fluff (which I myself have been working hard on, but every time I remove something, ten people will be waiting in live to add it back), and people got mad at time. I believe anon was still harboring a grudge over this, and chose to get extremely picky over the whole matter.
I doubt we'll come to a resolution anytime soon. I've proposed the creation of WikiProject Saturday Night Live, which I hope with the inclusion of an experience admin as a project member, we may finally come to some sort of an understanding.Mainly.generic (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there some general project or manual of style about TV series like this and what should go in? I didn't see one at the side of WP:TRIVIA which would be the overall guide but I saw a few similar areas. I'd have thought the main criterion would be WP:Verifiability, has the trivia been mentioned in a secondary source as something interesting? Ask people for citations and that should get rid of most of the trivia I'd have thought. Deleting trivia wholescale if there might be something reasonable in it seems to be discouraged by WP:TRIVIA though. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Continuous Personal Attacks by User:BilCat

Stuck
 – Initiator has a similar problem and has similar comments about admins on WP:ANI, not willing to accept answer here so best left to admins)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:BilCat is continuously calling me a vandal: [51], [52], [53]

When I asked him to stop that, he accused me of another blockable offense, again without evidence: [54]

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

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

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

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

So it's ok to call another editor vandal if I don't understand his actions? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You'll note that was in response to the previous edit summary calling his edit "vandalism" (although it was a legitimate edit). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, calling legitimate edits vandalism, as BilCat did, is uncool. As was this [[55]]. So both editors could be more polite. Gerardw (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
And the ANI discussion has reached the point of suggesting mutual apologies and going on from there; the proponent would like to see uninvolved agreement. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
For instance, this is a good way to go forward. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

What's been shown here might be incivil by BilCat, are NOT personal attacks. So please stop mis-characterizing things. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:PA lists among the things considered to be a personal attack: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. You can even be blocked for vandalism, so in my book it's worse than calling someone "idiot" or something similar. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but unexplained, unsourced and undiscussed anonymous edits are often indistinguishable from vandalism. If you don't want to be called a vandal, then don't edit like one. It is time you dropped the stick. - Nick Thorne talk 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Especially if you don't know jack about the article in question. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you not see the irony in your aggressive postng style in a thread started by you to complain about another editor's behaviour? People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. - Nick Thorne talk 03:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the article, BilCat didn't. I've just seen the movie before fixing its article, BilCat don't know jack about it. I'm aware that IPs are treated badly here, that shouldn't stop you to acknowledge the simple fact that I wanted to improve the article and BilCat tried to stop me. (Quite sucessfully in the case of the carriers' articles, I might add. The version that BilCat's expert confirmed to be wrong is still in place.) --91.55.230.143 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, what? To recap: 1. I report an uncivility. 2. One editor disagrees, one is not aware of current WP:PA, two at least see some merit. 3. The uncivil editor never even shows up. Now you come along and tell me to drop the stick? Please explain the procedure I should've rather followed. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The article has been fixed, BilCat has been told characterizing the edits as vandalism was uncool -- and you've been asked to drop the stick. The procedure you should follow now is to stop with the uncivil characterizations of other editors. e.g. don't know jack. and resume improving Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well 91.55, this post demonstrates excactly why you seem to be having trouble with other editors on Wikipedia. You assume a (totally unsupported) position of greater knowledge and moral superiority over other editors and then when they do not bow down to your wisdom you become aggressive. You ascribe motives to others that you cannot possibly know anything about and then deign to hand out advice that you might well take yourself. It is well and truly time for you to climb down from your high horse. - Nick Thorne talk 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Who is beating a dead horse now? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. Let me see. I've made four posts in this thread before this one. You've made ten. What do you think? I'm done with you, I think Bill was right - I'm bailing out WP:DNFT. - Nick Thorne talk 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The discussion above 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.

Peter Lee

Stuck
 – Subject warned by KillerChihuahua; taken to ANI also and then blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The most recent insults can be found here:

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

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

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

He was blocked [56]. Based on the historical record, I don't think we can do anything for you here and recommend to post on [WP:AN/I]Gerardw (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, alright then. Thanks for the advice. Will take it up on WP:AN/I. MarioR 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to trouble ANI. I'll take this on. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Of course it's personal attacks. It's beyond what WQA traditionally is set up to do; historically WQA hasn't been monitored by admins. Gerardw (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it certainly used to be, I guess they all stopped watching for the same reason I took it off my list for a while - it turned into a "block request whinefest" rather than actual requests for help. A lot of the incidents filed here a while ago were of the same pattern: Bait editor you're in a dispute with until they respond with something marginally uncivil. Run to WQA and demand a block. Get block. Make your desired edits, now unopposed and with no need to actually work with editors of other views. I got tired of it, I suppose others did as well. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Personal attack advice

Stuck
 – Use ANI or RfC/U.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

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

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

I think this is related to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#The irony of "RV_STOP_EDIT_WARRING!!!" set up after ZuluPapa5 put in a comment STOP THE TAG WAR NOW, SEE TALK!!! on the article and reverted it. The article referenced on that 'attack page' was deleted practically unanimously. My feeling is there's enough warring and admins and things on that talk page without more people being involved.
I searched for those personal attack terms on the talk page. The 'pointless', 'waste of time' and 'nonproductive' were not specific. However the 'incoherent' was personal, it occurred in Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #7. IT would be better to just say they didn't understand the proposal or be more specific about its problems rather than characterize the proposer. Have you put a message on the other editors talk page about this discussion here? Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The issues are focused in that article but cover a few others too. The ed told me to stay off his page and he would accept all warnings. Feel free to notify the ed. My talk page has not been changed. He removes anything regarding his behavior from his talk page.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like you were complaining yesterday on WP:ANI about William_M._Connolley on a related matter, so you have complained to admins too. What is that about canvassing other editors to attack you? I'll leave a note but editors ar entitled to remove practically anything from their talk pages. If they say they don't want to talk to you there you should respect tht but a dispassionate statement about a discussion on WQA should be okay. I'll go and put a message there anyway though. Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of ZP5's complaint, WMC has a long history of removing talk page comments (article talk page), edit warring, and incivility. I will provide detail here if requested, though it may take a bit of time as I'm pretty busy at the moment. ATren (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well he can remove his own article talk comments to show he retracts a comment but if it has been in for more than a short time he should strike them through or otherwise make it explicit as others may have read it. Are you saying he removes other people's comments? That is a more serious matter and should only be done for clearly personal attacks, see WP:RPA and of course one can remove clear vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's others' comments, and in most cases they don't contain PAs, at least not by the standard WMC has set for himself (e.g. not any worse than "incoherent", "waste of time", etc). I've seen it maybe a dozen times over the last few months. I will try to collect diffs and post them, but as I said, I am busy in real life so I may not get to it right away. ATren (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

How about the business about saying the editor was 'Incoherent, as usual'? Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I see Hipocrite removed another personal attack by you 'Declare ZP5 a waste of time and ban him from this article'. Sorry ZP5 for resurrecting that but iut seems germane here that another editor had to clean up the text rather than WMC. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the important thing is that the talk page, which is intended for the discussion of the article content, no longer contains that attack. The identity of the person removing it doesn't color the action. I encourage all editors to do likewise when talk pages become venues for personal attacks. --TS 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This whole attack thing has become ridiculous. This discussion started with ZP5's claim that User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is a personal attack. This is obviously rubbish. Close this discussion and stop this crazy mudslinging that is spreading over wikipedia and wasting people's time. Polargeo (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That was dismissed early on here. The question is about those personal attacks, can something be done about getting a more civil attitude or do you think they are an acceptable way to refer to a fellow editor? Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Dmcq. I know you mean well but ZP5 has been wasting a lot of people's time and stating so should not be dealt with as a personal attack any longer but an honest and constructive assessment of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Would "a waste of time is wasting people's time" be appropriate, or is that also too uncivil? WMC's choice of words may be less than ideal, but quite frankly, the sentiment behind them seems pretty much on target. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If folks don't want to invest productive time here, please refrain, and discontinue the the personal attacks on this page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Without providing the extensive list of diffs (please just look at user contributions ZP5) you have been going around claiming WMC has been personally attacking you on numerous occasions, usually over him expressing extremely minor and justified opinions. This really is wasting a lot of people's time here. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec)It's not an attack, it's a question as to whether people think that the wording is the problem, or the characterisation of your behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ZP5, don't you know WMC is allowed to say things which would get someone like you banned? ATren (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Inflammatory commentary does not help this situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither does pretending that a problem doesn't exist. ATren (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Nor does mischaracterising the issue. It is not that anyone is pretending that a problem does/doesn't exist - it is the simple fact that this WQA has outlived its usefulness and will not achieve any of the outcomes that are expected by either party. In such circumstances, the best thing to do is refer it to the more appropriate venue for presenting evidence and views on the matter - RfC/U. It would moot the primary concern expressed by the filing party also; there would be no "draft". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Guys, please calm down.
    • The subject of this WQA is entitled to maintain a page on his userspace that drafts (or has notes) for filing an RfC/U. In fact, it is specifically encouraged that you collect evidence and draft your RfC before filing one. If WMC kept this page up for an unreasonable amount of time (as a matter of days/weeks rather than a matter of 48 hours), then it may warrant deletion (through the appropriate deletion venues), but that is not the case here as it has been barely 48-ish hours since it was created.
    • There were occasions where the subject's comments have been construed by some users as incivility that was directed personally at the filing party (ZP5) - but these seem to have been dealt with to the satisfaction of those users.
  • This is resolved - any further issues would need to go through the next step in dispute resolution, namely RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, but I've started collecting evidence with respect to the side thread above (removing article talk comments) so I may open another report against WMC in the next few days.
I OBJECT - The attacks have not been resolved by the offender to my satisfaction. WMC could do better to explain himself before drafting an RFC. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Opening another thread would qualify as abusing the dispute resolution process. If comments warrant removal, use ANI or proceed to the next step in DR. As you do not agree with this being resolved, this is now closed as stuck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I suggest you replace the stuck mark. This WQA has clearly outlived its usefulness and the outcome that the filing party is seeking is not going to be achieved at this venue - in such circumstances where a party does not believe the issues are resolved, the dispute is marked as stuck and the parties are advised as to the next step(s) in DR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, please assume good faith here. A premature closure, without time for the offender to substantively respond, might be considered a form of escalation. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no offence per your original report. This is truely stuck. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to leave a moment for ZP5 or WMC to respond. Also if it is escaled I'd go to WP:ANI as RfC/U is not binding either so it can't do much more than here. If not then yes okay. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have made a lengthy comment on ZP5's talk page here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop feeding and encouraging this string of what is becoming harrassment by ZP5. The initial complaint is nonsense. He has gotten annoyed because editors are deleting his articles because they are extremely poor. This is not the place to deal with this issue. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I believe it is wrong to close this before giving WMC time to respond. Escalating issues to arbitration when it might still be possible to solve them amicably is not reasonable dispute resolution. I would recommend WMC be blocked from climate issues for a while if there is arbitration, I would prefer an undertaking to moderate the language just deal with the issues not personalities instead. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Your objection is noted, but please do not mess up the chronology of this thread. The thread is not closed as such until discussion stops or is stopped via archive tabs so there is no rush to remove the tag that exists. If there is no change after 24 hours, it is likely to be ready to close accordingly. In other words, perhaps instead of adding discussion, you should make this viewpoint known to WMC directly on his talk page rather than expecting he will respond again. Moreover, nobody here has suggested arbitration except you and perhaps the filing party - it is entirely unhelpful to pretend that is the course of action suggested, when the course of action suggested was WP:RFC/U; a place where users make agreements over such issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it where you put it but I clearly associated it with the stuck marker and tghings do get archived here fairly quickly. It sounds to me that you believe WMC will ignore this WQA after his initial response. I am sorry about that if so. I will not inform WMC as I already said about this being started up and it's been less than a day since. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that much is clear. I don't understand your unwillingness. Oh well, I will ask WMC if he wishes to make any further comments - based on his response, there or here, I guess we'll know where we're at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I view it as not assuming good faith to work as if an editor will ignore a complaint about civility. Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how you characterise this as a case of ignoring a complaint as opposed to not responding further as there isn't a need to. WMC has already responded and has stated his view; some users are of the view that there is some issues with civility while others feel that the issues have been dealt with or don't exist or won't happen again. In other words, the first step to resolving a dispute is determining if there are civility issues - I don't see wide agreement on that issue. Moreover, issues can be resolved without explicit assurances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Different editors are entitled to see things differently. I have not said WMC would ignore this or would respond, each editor is responsible for their own actions. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks. I'll repeat:
How about the business about saying the editor was 'Incoherent, as usual'?
I see Hipocrite removed another personal attack by you 'Declare ZP5 a waste of time and ban him from this article'. Sorry ZP5 for resurrecting that but iut seems germane here that another editor had to clean up the text rather than WMC.
I'll also repeat the advice I put in:
Whatever about the justification of opinions they should be phrased about the content and not about the person. 'I think going down that alley wouldn't be fruitful as we've been over it before in xyz' for instance is a comment about content rather than saying a person is a waste of time.
I would like to see some sort of commitment to sticking to the subject as in WP:NPA. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Restated in plain view: "I am looking for advice and attack intervention. The user has called me "pointless", a "waste of time", "non-productive" and "incoherent" as if 'he owns' the article's POV. He does not want to talk directly, ignores and then escalates issues, without addressing the content or the issues raised by me and others on talk pages." Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay then Ncmvocalist, you were right it is stuck. It is up to ZP5 to ignore this clear personal insult or else to escalate in the dispute resolution process unless an admin wants to do something different. Dmcq (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
An insistence that editors only "comment on content, not contributors" is exactly wrong when an RfC/U is being dealt with. The RfC/U process is supposed to be entirely about the contributor/editor behavior, not about the content. We have content RfCs for questions of content; it appears that WMC is planning to open a question about editor behavior. A prohibition on talking about editor behavior is counterproductive in the RfC/U process; problems of editor behavior cannot be addressed if editors are not allowed to talk about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
How about comment on "any" content (not "only"), please? The attacks seem to be void of the editor's objective context for me to addressed. As such, I am left to assume they reflect the attacker's behavior in the article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above 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.

User:B-Machine

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

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

His subsequent communication with me has been uncivil:

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

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

19:59 today: user made most recent personal attacks.
20:18 today: you warned the user about personal attacks.
20:28 today: WQA opened.
Can I suggest that we put this on hold in the hope that the user takes note of the warning about personal attacks? If they do not then would be happy to have the WQA continue, but as it is, I think that and discussion could result in the issue being drawn out rather than resolving it. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we can put it on hold and see what happens. However I must add that I first warned him of personal attacks at 19:54, and he continued at 19:59 - 20:18 was my second warning. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If that's his general attitude to life, I can't see him having a long and productive career. Also, last time I checked, Mariah Carey's grandparents were married. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realise that, would you like the WQA to go ahead? SpitfireTally-ho! 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, of course. After all the harassment that I receive from him through e-mail, I am not surprised I lost my last nerve.--Satt 2 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have never sent you an email. A sysop should be able to confirm this. Responding to a wikiquette alert with a lie is extremely bad faith. Izzedine 08:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
well, of course you did not do it through wikipedia when you can harass me in real life. I know you have been stalking me for a while now. You know what, Nasir, just because we could not agree on things in our Euro class does not mean you should take your hate in real life or online.Leave me alone and stop appearing like you're some kind of angel --Satt 2 (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Falsely accusing somebody of harrassment is even more serious than the previous lie you posted. According to your userpage you live in the USA. I live in England (this is my static IP), so i'm not your "Euro class" buddy. Izzedine 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Posted by 94.192.38.247 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you are enough technologically advanced to know that there are a wide range of tricks one can do with IP addresses. Please come up with something more reliable.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
And No, I never said you were a "buddy." I did call you a whole range of other things, however.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I want to recommend a sanction be given to this user for his behaviour this morning. Izzedine 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the administrators will be able to handle this situation without any recommendations from you. I'm sure they have seen a million things like this.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is beyond my understanding how can one view insults in everything. I only suggested that you might be unaware of softwares that change IP addresses to "protect" the owners. They are costly but it is a good investment for certain types of maniacs.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't care who started, I do know who has to stop. This is not the place to continue fighting (and neither is anywhere else on wiki). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If you've noticed Dirk, I haven't been fighting, I've been reporting a case of gross incivility. Izzedine 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you keep commenting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
He responded to the report by adding lies? Is there something wrong with commenting to respond to that? He has also continued the incivility here - "I never said you were a "buddy." I did call you a whole range of other things, however", "a good investment for certain types of maniacs". Izzedine 10:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No, but it shows that it does not help either. Remember why you posted here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to help, but yes. Izzedine 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Some of the language is inappropriate (although much of it is on talk pages. Having spent time looking at this I think you are both to blame and the edit waring is a nonsense. I have reverted Europe to the position before you both got started on this. I suggest you take some time out, then sit down and use the talk page to reach an agreement. I suggest this is closed, but someone put both editors under a mild warning in case of recurrence. --Snowded TALK 12:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to give Satt2 an opportunity to respond before we consider this resolved. Gerardw (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No objections to that --Snowded TALK 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Users are routinely sanctioned for a fraction of this behaviour. I wasn't rude to him once, I took all that abuse he threw, I reminded him of the guidelines [57], I used the talk page to explain my changes, he never once used it. I hope there is a sense of justice around here, so I know I haven't wasted my time trying to do the right thing. Izzedine 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: Satt 2 has responded on my talkpage, and posted a couple of times on a couple of talkpages of mainspace articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about Stevenmitchell

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

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

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

  • Follow this very simply... I actually derived the title from what I had observed on the article in question along with what was posted by numerous other Wikipedia editors who are replete with comments on your own User:Talk Page of how you have deleted constructive work (usually the editors themselves were the ones who were deleted and commenting on your page), was that you removed constructive contributions. I am very happy for you that you "by yourself" have decided to be the sole contributor to Wikipedia, but as it is a collaborative effort, I am suggesting that you deleted someone's else work that was worthwhile. Under the circumstances, I am rephrasing my point - If you felt so compelled about your own contribution, I believe (and I think this is the Wikipedia protocol) that you should have posted this new diagram on the Article Discussion page first or put it in the article along with the existing diagram. Now, because I don't agree with your position or contribution in this instance (and probably never will), you are apparently trying to call for my censorship. Hopefully, the powers that be, are not as narrow in scope or as bullying as you appear to be... (I will post this on your page as well)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I certainly did not destroy anything. I simply replaced an old diagram with a new one in an article. If anyone objects to that, they are free to revert the change or discuss it on the article talk page (neither of which have been done). Personally attacking me is not a solution, nor is it allowed by Wikipedia policies. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither other editor's past characterizations nor another editor's actions changes the standard of civil behavior. Sarcasm I am very happy for you... is not helpful. Gerardw (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
First off are the obvious civility issues, which are documented above and in the previous WQA. It's clear that this user needs to calm down when using the 'pedia; the comments of multiple editors on both WQAs make this clear. The civility problems might be helped by more productive engagement with fellow editors in the following two ways. First, Stevenmitchell should read this essay on contributing content to Wikipedia. It describes a paradigm for building content collaboratively without needing to attack users who have contrary views. Second, I'd recommend familiarity with the proper use of article talk pages. I have noticed that the user inserts commentary, sometimes sarcastic, into articles as HTML comments ([58], [59]), which is productive neither as an efficient way to communicate with fellow collaborators nor in terms of the tone used. — ækTalk 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Flower Travellin Problems - personal attacks, edit wars, POV

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

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

  • Some questionable changes : [60] [61] [62]
  • Some fine changes: [63]
  • Some odd removals of references: [64] [65] [66] [67]
  • and some blatant personal attacks and removals of huge chunks of pages (that I was not the only contributor to): [68] [69]

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

I have tried to discuss this with the user before, and was told by them not to talk to them again [70]. They refuse to participate in talk pages, and they refuse to use their account ever since they were blocked (although they are not currently blocked)[71]… The user has also (under other IPs) edit warred with others and myself [72], along with personal attacks and foul language [73]…

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

Calling somebody a vandal is a personal attack and quite unacceptablke. I think though this is probably more a content dispute or may even require admin action because of the way the bands own site is being used instead of secondary sources. Perhaps best would be if you could get a WP:Third opinion or better WP:Request for comments Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I see Lumnifer trying to WP:OWN that article and WP:CIVIL issues on the part of Lumnifer. I've addressed on his/her talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Need independent help with a talkpage

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

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

Can't see that it is too worrying for the moment. There might be a reasonable editor there you never know so if anything I'd go on don't bite the newcomers. The only worry I have about forums doing something is if they have some sort of agenda and so can be counted a meatpuppets but I don't think that's a real worry here. Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reinstated hiding some text which had degenerated into a personal attack and put in a reminder about the purpose of talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I was looking here, and just happened to stumble upon this. I want to thank tedder for raising the issue, and for all his help related to the page. I also thank Dmcq for coming to the talk page and helping, although I also note that some of the editors have reverted what Dmcq did. Let me suggest that impartial editors who read here consider keeping an eye on the talk page (ie, Talk:Crucifixion in art), and see what you think about what shows up there. In my opinion, administrators other than tedder have been too tentative about communicating (ie, at their user talk pages) with editors who make personal attacks, at least to explain to them what is or is not within policy, out of what I guess is fear of being bitey.
By way of background, it is useful to look at our page on 4chan. What I think can be described as a sister-site of that is very actively engaged in egging on its readers to come to Wikipedia for the general purpose of removing anime-related images that they find offensive, and, now, for the specific purpose of trolling and harassing me. When Dmcq invokes bite, that's perfectly understandable if you don't know what's going on, but please believe me that an awful lot of these are not simply new editors, but meatpuppets with a disruptive agenda. (P.S.: I just looked briefly at tedder's link. Remarkable how people who cannot seem to come up with a diff to support their allegations of my supposedly terrible editing have no problem posting diffs of my edits, as soon as I make them, on their external site.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"What I think can be described as a sister-site of that is very actively engaged in egging on its readers to come to Wikipedia for the general purpose of removing anime-related images that they find offensive" - Thats so sad :( Too bad its not true. Stop trying to frame everyone who thought the anime section in Crucifixion was out of place, specially with the tacky anime pictures, in a bad light. Noone was arguing the removal of ALL PRESIOUS ANIMU PICTURES from wikipedia, just a spesific picture from a spesific article. Truth be told its amazing something came of it at all with the ungodly hours, millions of rules and wall-of-text "some" editors spent trying to prevent any change to a section they feel they own.
Honestly this discussion(and the shitload of others) could be seen as part of a long term campaign to have the changes reverted. If anything this case is a textbook example of editors bending the WPs rules to get their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
[74]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
And? I don't see what you are trying to prove here, if you want to ask me something go ahead and do it. Stop being so passive-aggressive about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

What's the user doing the 'typofish' thing, do you have diffs, and have you warned them against changing talkpage comments? tedder (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it isn't going back and changing my signature, but, rather, just pointedly calling me that name. No I haven't warned them, as I fear any warning from me would just be gasoline on the fire, but it got discussed, not in hindsight in the best way, at Talk:Crucifixion, where it happened first: [75]. Followed by disingenuous [76], and now [77]. Preceded by a lot of stuff like this [78], and a somewhat interesting user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Sounds like the normal SPA SA griefers. tedder (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well said! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that such SPA conduct by any editor is acceptable, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenebrae

This editor has issues with my editing, and these matters can be discussed elsewhere. What I object to and would like to have Tenebrae spoken to about is his manner of communication. Irrespective of what he believes, comments in Edit Summaries should not name another editor or make derogatory assumptions : [79] This user is not an adminstrator. Many thanks.

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

Doesn't look like a civility concern to me. You should note that there is nothing wrong with referring to other editors in edit summaries, what an edit summary should do is describe changes made to the article, when you undo an edit the software automatically names the user who has had their edits undone. This edit summary does not satisfactorily explain the changes made, this one does.
Accusing Tenebrae of breaching civility was not a very good move in my opinion, due to the fact he hadn't broken civility, but also because making such accusations can inflame a situation. The edit summary you seem to have a problem with is: "restoring to last protected version Asgardian unilaterally and summarily reinstalled his controversial, edit-warring version". This, although showing some disregard for your work, is not uncivil, and should not be treated as such.
You seem to be in a content dispute on the Juggernaut page, what I often see at WQA is users who are in content disputes coming here with accusations of civility breaks within the dispute, most the time these accusations, although not malicious, are unfounded. Remember, during a content dispute tempers and patience can fray. It important to AGF, and always keep in mind the goal of the content dispute: to improve the project.
I suggest that you resolve the content dispute with Tenebrae on the article talk page, remember that you both have the same goal in mind, and that you should both try and be as reasonable and polite as possible.
Again, this does not look like a civility issue. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreee. I think it could be phrased a tad better but it does seem to me that there is an acknowledged edit war in progress and that you did completely change the page and put in a deceptive summary. This seems to be a content dispute and you need to follow that Dispute resolution process. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There would seem to be some inconsistencies here. A previous administrator stated that editors have a right not to be named in Edit Summaries, and yet here another says it is fine. I am also wary of the statement that there was a "deceptive summary" as that implies there was a deliberate attempt at some covert action, which was not true. I suppose this exposes one of those chinks in the Wikipedia armour: different people at different times making what are ultimately subjective interpretations of regulations. No matter. We'll move and try and resolve this. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Tenebrae. As chronicled here, he is far from the first to find Asgardian's edit-summaries deliberately misleading, and among other things, Asgardian's reaction of very easily bringing up "civility concerns" is traced into a pattern. This page is worth keeping a note of for administrators to gain a wider perspective of the situation. Dave (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The referenced link is to a draft RFC on a user talk page that has not been posted. Doesn't strike me as relevant... Gerardw (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly much better not to name other editors in edit summaries. They can easily turn into personal attacks and are harder to remove than entries in talk pages. As to your edit summary could you be quite a bit more careful in future please not to just say something like you are putting in some extra references when you revert an article to something quite different. I think that would help save hassle like this. Say you are reverting and to what so others know what's happened. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It was an oversight. Thank you for the advice. Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

Resolved
 – reporter considers closed Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wont be removing anything I wrote.

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

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

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

  • Note: Since WVBluefield has stated, "I consider this matter settled, so please dont bother me further about it here", could I impose upon another reader to notify him of this thread? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Gerardw (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I do consider this matter settled. Xenophrenic removed not just what he thought were personal attacks but also the additional talk page content that I hadadded, even going so far as to start an edit war over it. He’s been here for a while, so he should know better than to modify talk page content, and he damn well should know that outright removal or deletion of talk page content is prohibited. As far as the potential to get worse, Xeno certainly has his own history and has been sanctioned by Arbcom for turning articles into battlegrounds. I came to the article only because I saw it posted at RfC and I though I could be of some help, as I was to Xeno with a Ward Churchill related article. This alert is entirely spurious and question Xeno’s motivations for posting it. You can consider this my one and only reponse. WVBluefield (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Could we please remain factual about this, WVB? The link you provided does not show me removing additional talk page content of yours. If you'll look a little more closely, you'll see that you used the (undo) function to revert my removal of your inappropriate commentary on editors, and I then used the (undo) function to revert your edit. You happened to also slip in some additional text with your revert, without noting it in the edit summary; instead leaving it to appear you had only reverted. All of my subsequent edits removed only your inappropriate comments. It surprised me that you would start an edit war to keep inappropriate commentary on an article talk page.
Will you please remove that commentary? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

As you advise, I did ask the user to remove the inappropriate comments, and that failed so I brought it here to WQA. The link you provided indicates it is appropriate to remove obvious trolling, which I did. Of course I agree to not edit other's appropriate comments. The inappropriate comments are still on the article talk page. What would you suggest as the correct next step? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at multiple links in quick succession and failed to post this one Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments. Simply stated, it's best if you just don't edit others comments. If there is outing information it needs to be deleted (not revised) by an admin. Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is even better if inappropriate comments aren't made on article talk pages in the first place, in violation of WP:NPA and WP:TP. I understand the point you are making regarding deletion of other people's comments. Do you have any suggestions regarding the inappropriate comments presently on the article talk page? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ignore them. Gerardw (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Simply put: Do not make edits conditionally allowable by guidelines, and ignore edits made by others that are unconditionally prohibited by policy. Got it. Thank you for your input in this matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Whoa, cowboy! Where did that come from? If you'll please re-read the discussion above, you'll note I have no "dispute with another editor". The issue was NPA instructs us to comment on content, not on editors, and comments like, "Seeing as how Xenophrenic is so intent on non-cooperation here (its not a contest to see who can type the most) and has failed to put together a coherent argument..." really looks like a comment on editors to me. Perhaps you disagree, but that is nothing to get so riled up over. On the otherhand, according to the links provided by Gerardw, there are numerous occasions and situations when one editor might edit or remove another editor's comments. You apparently disagree with this also, but such disagreements hardly warrant your tirade. If you really want to pick a fight, could you please choose someone else? This matter was closed as far as I was concerned. Gerardw was kind enough to give me his input, and I appreciate that, despite our differing viewpoints. Please step back and let the matter rest, Nick. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This edit, dripping with sarcasm, is hardly that of somebody who has taken on board the good advice of another editor and who considers the matter closed. Your attempt to refactor your blatant deletion (twice) of another editor's comments on an article talk page as somehow acceptable only serves to compound your error. Understand this - it is never acceptable to edit another editor's comments on an article talk page. Full stop. No exceptions. Not ever. It is not me who should stop, it is you, lest you incur the wrath of a passing admin. You are standing on very thin ice there, be careful. You really do not seem to understand the gravity of what you have done. My advice to you is that you forthwith give a full and sincere apology to WVBluefield and promise never to edit, delete or hide the comments of another editor on any article talk page again. - Nick Thorne talk 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Understand this - it is never acceptable to edit another editor's comments on an article talk page. -- Nick

removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. --WP:NPA

Full stop. -- Nick

Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. --WP:TP

No exceptions. -- Nick

Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism --WP:Civility

Not ever. -- Nick

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. --WP:NPA

...promise never to edit, delete or hide the comments of another editor on any article talk page again. -- Nick

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: --WP:NPA
Once again, Nick, I respectfully ask that you let the matter rest. Please stop picking fights with me; please cease trying to escalate a closed matter. G'day, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking your five items in turn:
  • not aplicable in this case as there was no personal attack
  • you did not exercise any caution and you have not shown that it was allowed in this case
  • there was no trolling or vandalism
  • no unusual circumstances in this case
  • only in your mind was there a personal attack. Your oversensitivity does not make everyone else's personal attack.
I am not trying to pick any sort of fight with you, rather I am trying to get you to see that you are at least as cuplable as the editor you opened this WQA about. You have not made any allowance for the fact that the written word is easy to misinterpret with regard to tone and so comments that may be written with a light even humourous "voice" in the head of the person writing may be "heard" as offensive or critical by the reader. Your response has been completely disproportionate to the alleged offence and I am calling you on it. If you don't like that, well that really is too bad. I don't really care all that much - just go on as you have been and see where it gets you. It's no skin off my nose. On the other hand, if you actually want to help participate in building an encyclopedia, then you might want to re-read my words without your automatic defensive weaponry armed and ready and you might just learn something that will help you out on Wikip[edia and in life. Or not, I don't care, it's not my problem. I'm done with you, have a nice life. - Nick Thorne talk 11:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, even while you claim you are "just trying to get me to see", your condescending attitude belies that. "want to help participate in building an encyclopedia?" "help you out on Wikipedia and in life?" Please. While I did come here to solicit advice, I did not expect it to come from on high. You wikilawyer my "five items" above while totally missing the point: you claimed editing another's talk page comments is never permissible, when it is. At least we now agree on that. Frankly, Nick, I took your initial comments as those from someone that knew nothing about this situation, and even less about policy. Telling someone to stop editing comments when he already has; or to apologize when he has already said he was sorry for the misunderstanding; or to take a break and cool down when the matter had already settled and everyone had moved on - are you sure you are commenting on the correct matter here? The issue was an editor commenting on another editor on article talk pages - not the personal attacks. Yes his comments were uncivil - and his last one was certainly trolling - but if you'll read the complaint above, you'll see the issue was where he was commenting, not what he was saying. I even offered to continue the discussion about WVB's concerns on his talk page. The only sensitivity I showed was for the other editors on that article talk page. The page is cluttered enough without subjecting them to more irrelevant commentary about editors by editors. Since we're sharing advice, you may wish to review issues more thoroughly before interjecting, and definitely brush up on Wikipedia policy - not just the wording, but the spirit and intent. If our paths cross again, I really do hope we both get off on better footing. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Its unfortunate that I have allowed you to bait me here as long as you have but Nick brought up a good point, and one I have briefly touched on before. Your response to my alleged outrages on your personal dignity are completely disproportionate to what actually happened and when looked at in combination with your history here and the way you seem to take every talk page you participate on and spam the living heck out of it shows an alarming level of disruption and tendentiousness. This isn’t a battlefield or a debating board and you don’t “win” arguments here or convince others of a direction to take an article through sheer stamina on the talk page and always having the last word. How you have evaded administrative oversight for your behavior puzzles me. WVBluefield (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from commenting about editors on article talk pages, WVB. Your history of warnings and blocks here, on both of your accounts, during such a short time is indicative of deeper problems. The advice given you on the several noticeboard incidents would be best heeded. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What we do here, as outlined here [[80]], is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility and/or difficult communications; The input of two neutral editors has been that WVBluefield's edits were not significantly uncivil enough to warrant editing talk page comments. Your stated goal in posting was to get a little advice, which has been provided. As you stated the matter was closed, I'm tagging this section as resolved; if you disagree we can tag it WQA in progress to solicit additional editor's input. Alternatively you can take the complaint to WP:AN/I. My opinion is concurrent with Nick's: I think it likely you would receive more scrutiny for editing the talk page comments than WVBluefield would for posting them. Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, Gerardw. My stated goal was for advice to curb this "before it mushroomed into something more serious", but fortunately WVBluefield ceased the article page incivilities at that point - so perhaps the mere posting of my request here served its purpose. As I mentioned above, I do understand the points you were making about editing other people's comments, and I had already come to a similar conclusion before coming here. Otherwise, I would have continued to remove the incivilities and taken the matter straight to AN/I for enforcement - but the attacks simply weren't that abrasive. Instead, I copied the commentary to WVB's talk page, perfectly willing to continue the discussion there until we resolved his concerns. Yes, I consider this matter closed. I appreciate your candor and demeanor, even in the face of my expresssed disagreement (confused by Nick as sarcasm), and your advice. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem with IP editor on Talk:Jennifer Garner?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – continue on article talk page Gerardw (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the attitude and actions of an IP editor, 70.241.26.184, on talk:Jennifer Garner. Recently, another IP editor questioned the relevance of one of the sections in the biography of Jennifer Garner. A registered editor, Emma white20, posted in defence of the section, at which point 70.241.26.184 joined the discussion, supporting the view of the first IP editor and stating that "If it's not rewritten and sourced within the next few weeks, I'll remove it myself". Emma white20 replied to the post by 70.241.26.184 stating in question form their view that, if the section was indeed unencyclopedic and irrelevant, it would almost certainly have been removed a long time ago by one of the experienced and registered editors who regularly police the article. They then did as 70.241.26.184 demanded by editing the section and adding additional sources to the four already there, at which point 70.241.26.184 accused Emma white20 of "bulldozing" and made a claim of apparent greater authority/experience as an editor than appears to be supported by their short edit history. They also posted what amounted to an ultimatum by stating "If the section isn't improved 'in the next day or so', I'll ask for a third, fourth or even fifth opinion on this because I'm not about to roll over just because you have an issue with playing well with others." At this point, I joined the discussion in support of Emma white20's position on retention, and stated that, in my opinion, editing down and sourcing an article didn't class as "bulldozing", while giving ultimatums to other editors and trying to influence their edits could certainly be interpreted that way. 70.241.26.184 then made further accusations of posts against them being "dismissive" and "condescending", which may have been aimed at either myself or Emma white20, although it is unclear who they were actually aimed at. With the discussion deadlocked with two IP editors in favour of deleting the section, and two registered editors in favour of retention, and without any prior open consultation with the other editors involved, 70.241.26.184 then opened an RfC on the matter of possible deletion of the section, in what could possibly be construed as an apparent attempt to gain support for their position. It seems to me that they may be trying to rush Wikipedia process in an attempt to get their way, plus have some issues with their attitude towards other editors who hold opposing views, and I'd certainly appreciate any additional views on their conduct and help with resolving the situation. Gidz (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First - consensus is not a !vote so there's no such thing as "deadlocked" in this situation. You can drive by and say you support someone all you want - you did not even attempt to include a policy based reason why the content should be included which is what consensus should be based on. Second - I didn't canvass anyone to support me so how is opening a valid request for comment to get additional editors views an "apparent attempt to gain support" for my supposed position? I also didn't hurl any personal attacks at anyone so the faux concern is misplaced. I'm allowed to state that I find someone's attitude or comments condescending or dismissive. By the way, a request for comment can run for up to 30 days. If I were that interested in trying to slam dunk this, I would have tried a quicker route. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Commenting on the condescension isn't actually helpful. Staying cool and dpening the RFC is.Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The comments were aimed at Emma white20, who was commenting on the editor's status (IP) and not the content and therefore could be easily perceived as condescending. Opening an RFC is exactly what should be done when consensus can't be achieved and is evidence of WP:CIVILITY. Gerardw (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive77&oldid=1143537519"