Revision as of 01:45, 27 July 2010

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

Active alerts

Walter Görlitz

I am loathe to bring a matter here; I almost never do. However, Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) is an editor who's found his way to the block of articles I normally edit and there has been some quite intense friction. He's fairly consistently edit warred and subsequently made on talk pages numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, hasn't heeded my requests to cease such behaviour, and seems like he'll be active on the pages I'm at for some time. Hence, I'd like some assistance - either another voice or other voices he might listen to, some guidance, and/or general advice - in getting the atmosphere more collegial, for everyone.

A sample of what I'm talking about follows:

• Questioning my grasp of English:
  • "English comprehension as well?"
  • "Don't place tags until you learn the Queen's English"
  • "English much?"
• Accusations of bad faith:
  • "you have shown bad faith in this date format thing in the past"
  • "You came off looking badly in both cases... I'm saying that you don't operate in good faith. I have no need to control date formats: that seems to be your domain considering your history.... Seeing as how little you respect consensus, I doubt that discussing this will matter."
  • "You edited in bad faith..."
  • "In total, your argument... is a lie based upon your lack of good faith editing and your blatant disregard for the rules you are clinging to." With the added edit summary, "red herring season."
  • "Reverted 2 edits by Miesianiacal identified as vandalism to last revision by Walter Görlitz" (A false accusation)
  • "Reverted 2 edits by Miesianiacal identified as vandalism to last revision by Walter Görlitz" (A false accusation)
  • "I would prefer User talk:Miesianiacal to simply admit to making the changes and revert them..." (I hadn't made all the changes)
  • "The distinguishing "that country's" was edit-wared by User:Miesianiacal"(I reverted once)
  • "Feel free to continue to obfuscate."
  • "I'll wait for Miesianiacal to tell me that he's ignoring consensus before I escalate."
  • "How about you stop showing WP:Ownership?" (After I'd agreed to a third opinion I'd sought)
  • "That was gracious losing. You thought you were right and made an appeal hoping to be vindicated. When it turns out that you were wrong you actually argued with those called to help you. YOu finally gave in when you realized you could not persuade them that your previous wording wasn't ideal." (About my seeking of dispute resolution and subsequent (and immediate) acceptance of the compromise)
• A bit of both:
  • "User talk:Miesianiacal is mistaken at best or at worst lying or incapable of reading."
• Policing my talk page comments:
  • "Removing prejudice and incorrect commentary"
  • "Inserting your opinion on a talk page to bias the discussion with false information is not a benefit. Don't do it again. I decided not to warn you and merely reverted your attempt to influence editors with your typical misrepresentation. I will be forced to warn you the same way you warned me."
• General rudeness:
  • "I think 'that country's confederation' is the stupid wording..."
  • "Nice hyperbole."
  • "I wasn't being rude, you are being arrogant though"
  • "Sorry if it offends you to try to make sense."
  • "Miesianiacal has a Messiah complex"
  • "You really are insipid."

Some of the more offensive comments left at my talk page I deleted, but for context and more detail, the following discussions generally illustrate the interactions between Walter Görlitz and myself:

• Talk:Victoria Day#For the record
• Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format
• Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Seeking consensus to remove .3Csmall.3E tags around .3Cref.3E
• Talk:David Lloyd Johnston#Date format
• Talk:Michaëlle Jean#Confederation of...?
• User talk:Miesianiacal#Victoria Day x2
• User talk:Miesianiacal#Counting and WP:3RR
• User talk:Miesianiacal#GG date formats

It may also be pertinent to check the history of his talk page; he's had some civility warnings in the past (eg. ), but he deleted them.

I understand that I am not free of blame for some bad attitude myself, here; in compiling this report, I've come to notice my tendency to be a little too sensitive and beget snippiness with more snippiness. I will try harder to control that. However, it's still my impression that the scales of misbehaviour are tipped towards WG's side (no bias, of course! ;) ). Other input - on WG, myself, or both together - would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to argue against this record nor have I read it. User: Miesianiacal's ability to record every offence made against him is well recognized. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you two need a divorce. -- œ 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And this forum may be the wrong place for that. Jusdafax 11:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the desired result is: it's not really specified. A possible interaction ban? This is a detailed report, and needs further clarification... Doc9871 (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of the instructions at the head of this page, I was under the impression that this forum didn't offer much in the way of action; it was more just a place to analyse situations and explore some options. I don't necessarily want to see WG pushed off; he can be productive and sometimes civil. I guess I'd first just like a confirmation that his behaviour has indeed been contrary to Misplaced Pages's civility guidelines and, if so, have him hear more voices reminding him to keep it respectful and see what results from that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I will comment. The "civility warning" was more of a comment made by an editor who took my comment to a third editor, on that third editor's talk page, in the wrong light. The third editor on whose talk page I posted a comment had restored a section to an article with a comment that made it obvious that he missed a discussion on the talk page about removing some content. He was also in an edit war earlier in the day and I was trying to inquire if he was having a bad day. After receiving the "warning" I immediately went back to the third editor and apologized. He then came back and said that he took not offence. And contrary to M's accusation that I deleted "them" (a single warning treated as a plural?) is incorrect as the full discussion is on my talk page and has been there since the issue ended five days ago. I may have received earlier notices or comments and they're in my archives, although I may have removed them after responding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So how do you foresee ending this matter? -- œ 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are at an impasse here. The original poster may wish to take the substantial work in notating these extensive complaints to WP:ANI. In an ideal world the parties would agree to disagree and carry on building an encyclopedia, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Suggest closure as stale and unresolved without some movement in the next day or so. Jusdafax 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I "second" closing it as "stale". As stale as three-day old bread - I asked the good reporter to respond: to no avail. This thread is dead, baby... Doc9871 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree and tagging as such. Discussion can be reopened or restarted at any time, if needed. Swarm 07:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I merely wasn't sure what to do; WG wasn't being terribly incivil for a bit there and it seemed as though going to ANI was just a touch too drastic for the circumstances. However, it appears that he's back to the bullying and tendentiousness accusations of bad faith and again, albeit more subtle. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsure why this was reopened. Please, again, what are the actual desired results of the filing of this report? A block of Walter Görlitz for incivility? Topic ban? Not a huge fan of rollback being used for this edit in particular - but I don't think the priv should be removed either. I'm not trying to make light of this, and I have respect for both of you. How do you suggest that this matter be resolved? Several editors agree this should be closed as "stale": as the filer, it would be best to elaborate before it is closed again. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all you say is fair enough. So, to be clear, what I desired in bringing this matter here was:

a) a confirmation from the community that the above is indeed illustrative of an individual's uncivil behaviour, and

b) to have other editors strongly suggest to WG that he cease with said uncivil and aggravating behaviour.

If things didn't change after that, then I'd consider taking it to ANI. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, and I hope WG takes note and learns from this. I for one deplore his style, which you have meticulously documented. Agree that if WG can't learn the value and importance of civility in editing, it becomes a matter of concern for the wider community via ANI. I think we all want this to end on a positive note, however. Jusdafax 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems he's still at it: after saying he wanted to wait for consensus at an RfC before making a change to an article related to that discussion, he started reverting that very article, using another anon IP's reverts as an excuse before trying to pin the blame on me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Behavious duly noted and on record. b) From reading this thread I think he's getting the point well enough, no need for further admonishment. Unless, if the situation escalates further from this point, I'd endorse a User/RfC, as that would probably be the resulting suggestion if this went to ANI. Can we mark this resolved for now or have there been any other developments? -- œ 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what's been said here is indicative of any change in WG's behaviour; besides what I mentioned earlier today, we still have him mocking my words and comments like "if only I could convince you to stop being so self-righteous in your actions." In fact, from his near complete lack of participation, I don't believe he's at all interested in this thread. Perhaps on those grounds alone it's reached the end of its useful life. An RfC/User is such a messy affair, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(o/d) I've observed both WG and Mes in action previously and have been less than impressed by both their styles of discourse. Sampling about 1/3 - 1/2 the provided links, I can find several examples of WG crossing the line ("you really are insipid" and the retaliatory warning, for two) and I can also see Mes repeating patterns I recall from the past (dogged "discussion" and co-personalization of disputes). So it's not a clean picture, but what I'm seeing here is WG being a tad more in the wrong than Mes.

If I was currently more active (as an admin or editor), I would warn/counsel WG about over-personalizing disputes (again I think) and admonish him that if you are going to place a warning (or "don't make me post this warning") on a user talk page, you better be prepared to escalate it if necessary - or engage in discussion to resolve your interpersonal problem, evidence of which I cannot find. I'd also mention changing another user's project-space talk page post, which you bloody well should note on that talk page if you are going to do it at all.

I couldn't act in an admin capacity with Mes on this, since I've worked on sufficiently close content issues with them, but if I could, I would be warning about dredging up every single thing from the past when you interact with another editor. Sometimes people fundamentally disagree, sometimes they just don't get along. Curb your tendency to enter the "battleground" and do keep in mind that you occasionally may actually be wrong. Myself, I consider being frequently wrong as one of the areas where I have the most experience. :)

I'd recommend closing this as suggested above. Behaviour noted, next step is a user RFC if desired. Going to AN/I is unlikely to yield anything more than my cautions above, given the extended timeframe of the supplied links. If it did go to AN/I, an interaction ban could happen - but then both parties will have to deal with that messiness of who edits what. Both editors would be better off to stop worrying about each other's characterization of themselves and just focus on finding a good compromise on the content disputes. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Franamax - very well said! Jusdafax 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that last sentence is the key towards a favorable outcome. -- œ 04:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't really disagree with anything Franamax says above.

If this has reached a conclusion, should WG be made aware of the final comments? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Erachima

I don't think that closing the discussion about Descriptive & segmented article titles is justified, nor in any way good ettiquette in view of the fact that the discussions are currently in progress. The edit summary suggests that this reason as being "collapse-archiving discussion, as it's eating the whole page".

I think the issue here is that Erachima has over stepped the mark. I do not want to enter into an edit war, but I would like someone assistance to restore the discussions to one of civility, at the very least. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking as the other party in this dispute, this is the incorrect venue. Our disagreement is not a matter of impolite communication. It is a matter of my judgment with regard to consensus, and more specifically, my judgment that a discussion had reached a clear conclusion but continued chasing its own tail due to one editor who believes attrition is an appropriate means of winning an argument on Misplaced Pages. It properly belongs on WP:ANI, and I will report my actions there myself if necessary. --erachima talk 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how consensus can be said to have been reached by collapsing the discussions. Several editors, including yourself, have been making contributions only day. How does preventing editors from participating in the discussions facilitate consensus? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it is indeed necessary. WP:ANI#Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles debate closure. --erachima talk 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a Wikiquette issue

I disagree that this is an ANI issue, and I believe it will be dismissed there shortly as being hand holding. Discussions between editors are conducted throughout Misplaced Pages as a matter of routine, and require no administrator intervention. Collapsing the discussion is effectively a way of slamming the door on a discussion in progress. I would like this matter reopened. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, erachima collapsed-archived (later changed to an archive box) a discussion while the discussion was active. Gavin saw this as an uncivil and disruptive action. Is that about correct? This certainly is not an ANI situation. Unless you would like to request yourself be blocked, erachima, reporting yourself at ANI isn't going to solve any problems that can't be solved here, and serves to do nothing more than facilitate drama. According to WP:CLOSE, the customary guidelines for closing discussions are grounded in Misplaced Pages:etiquette, thus improper closures are indeed Wikiquette-related. This is the Wikiquette noticeboard, so I conclude that this is indeed the proper venue for this situation, despite the discussion on ANI (ANI doesn't "override" WQA or anything like that). More so, Gavin, the creator of this WQA simply does not want the discussion to be closed, so I've reopened it.

As for the issue itself, closing discussions like this is usually a bad practice. If someone wants to discuss, you can't prevent them, but you don't have to respond back. Usually, discussions can be closed if they're inactive for a relatively long period of time. Otherwise, they can be closed by consensus. This is usually done when a discussion has stopped being productive and can no longer accomplish anything. This can be done by starting a new section titled Motion to close with the reasoning explained below. If a rough consensus is in favor of closing, you can close it. It's that simple. Otherwise, you shouldn't close a discussion without consensus of doing so.

Anyway, this is the place to discuss, ANI is the place for issues that require action, which isn't necessary. If you're willing to talk to Gavin and deal with the issue, this is the place. It's clear Gavin isn't interested in carrying this to ANI. Swarm 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, short of a consensus or agreement to close, Gavin, you're free to open the discussion as you see fit. Swarm 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I intend to reopen the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles shortly, but I will pause and give Erachima time to respond. I am open to suggestion as to how the discussion can be modified if he feels that the thread is too long: perhaps it can be cut into several parts which Mizbot can subsequently archive. However, if he feels that the proposal has "failed", then I believe needs to bring his thoughts to the discussion, and they will be welcome. I will mention this to him on his talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't re-open the thread. The proposal is dead already, reanimating the corpse will be futile. You need to recognise when your arguments have failed to convince people. Fences&Windows 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that, please give reasons on the talk page. The archiving of the thread is unnecessary in the first place, so I am not going to defend reopening it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm... Interesting bit of legal fiction that's been used to expand the use of this venue, but I guess I can see the justification, as WP:ANI is a crowded place at the best of times. Non-internet-related responsibilities have been keeping me rather busy today, but my opinion was mostly summed up in this ANI post. To summarize:

1. I have, and had, no intention of suppressing discussion of the underlying issue of how to best title articles in accordance with WP:NPOV.
2. The specific proposal has, in fact, been rejected, and its archival was long-overdue.
3. Misplaced Pages's decision-making process is based around the establishment of consensus. It is unhelpful to the establishment of consensus for single individuals to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum (c.f. Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass), and when taken to the extreme it is a form of obstructive, tendentious editing. It is not behavior that can be tolerated, because it endangers the entire framework upon which Misplaced Pages is built.
4. User:Gavin.collins has a long-standing tendency of attempting to force his rejected opinions into policy by outlasting his opponents and taking their silence as surrender, even if the silence follows several hundred kilobytes of numerous editors explaining to him exactly why his opinions are against community principles, as occurred in this debate.
   
   In conclusion, I whole-heartedly endorse User:Swarm's statement above that "closing discussions like this is usually a bad practice", but this was an unusual situation, I believed it warranted an unusual action even if it would be controversial, and it appears that the majority agrees my decision was correct. I thank you all for your time, especially anyone who actually read the sixty pages of discussion that the rejected proposal spawned, and hope that the matter can now be considered settled. Have a good evening, everyone. --erachima talk 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion Clearly there a strong opinions on both sides of this disagreement, and I don't want to end this discussion without something positive coming out of it. Could I sugggest that I open a thread at WP:Village pump/Policy about the issue revealed in the discussion "Example: Jan Smuts in the Boer War" about segmented article titles and their interaction with WP:UNDUE? If this is not an issue that other editors are interested in, then perhaps that would indicate that the discussions had come to an end? Personally I feel it is a hot topic that will be of interest to other editors. We can discuss the wording that will lead this thread, if that will make you feel more comfortable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Personally I feel it is a hot topic that will be of interest to other editors." Well, we'll see the truth of that soon enough. It'd help if you actually defined what "segmented titles" means, and if you differentiated between the article titles policy and inclusion criteria, which are separate matters. Fences&Windows 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you advice, which makes sense. For your information, I have opened a thread at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Alternative_article_names. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see that there is a lot of intense opposition to the proposal, which probably explains why the discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles was collapsed and archived. This is a somewhat different from rejection, which is a matter of opinion, not fact, and I don't believe it is appropriate to close a discussion simply because it is intense, or resulted in annoyance to a particular editor, and sets a bad precedent. I have therefore removed the rejected/archive tag and leave the discussion open for other editors (other than me) to add their comments if they wish. As a courtesy to the other parties to this discussion, I promise not to add any further comments to the discussion "Descriptive & segmented article titles", nor to reopen a new thread on the same issue. This matter is now resolved from my perspective and I hope other editors can also move on in a constructive manner. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in reopening it when you created the VPP discussion; you should not split discussion like that - that's edging on forum shopping. It is likely better to close the AT one, but link the VPP one for more details and discussion since you want the wider audience there. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As a good faith gesture, I won't be commenting any further at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Alternative article names either, if that is your concern. I hope this brings closure for you as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Users:97.93.109.174 & 71.12.74.67

These Users are harassing me on my talk page and on Talk:Libertarianism and trying to get me to stop editing Libertarianism because they doen’t like anarchists and are under the mis-impression I am one-not that it should matter. Actually I haven’t edited the article much because a couple of these guys keep me too busy countering their constant WP:soapbox about why there should be no mention of anarchism, including because it allegedly hurts Ron Paul's credibility! This is a similar attack to one I reported at Wikiquette alerts recently by User:Ddd1600. Don’t know if it’s the same person but I would not be surprised if there was sockpuppetry going on. Relevant links/diffs:

• a User: Ddd1600 more recent ambiguous personal attack here
• Special:Contributions/71.12.74.67 responds with CAROL=ANARCHIST?]
• User97.93.109.174 suddenly appears with a lot of questions he demand I answer at User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_3 and

User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_vs_Anarchism.

• On Article talk page 97.93.109.174 then demands I stop editing the article because I allegedly am an anarchist.
• More harassment on talk page by 97.93.109.174 about me being an anarchist who shouldn't edit the article.

Needlesstosay, this makes it difficult to focus on finding some good new sources to beef up the article and answer some legitimate objections, and to end all the WP:OR editing while both left and right libertarian editors are busy ripping up the lead. Oi Oi Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As they're anonymous IPs, I've left them both basic WP:NPA warnings on their talk pages; I'm not sure if this will help or not. If it continues, a few escalating warnings followed by an ANI report will eventually solve the problem. If you would like further discussion here, please alert the users about this thread so they can reap anything produced from a discussion. Swarm 01:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I mentioned on my talk page...can you please specify the instance that you felt to be a personal attack? I looked at the page on attacks and none of my comments fell under any of those categories.

The problem isn't that Carolmooredc is an Anarchist. The problem is that she doesn't realize that modern Libertarianism is not the same thing as Anarchism. According to the Britannica article...Libertarianism has its roots in Anarchism...that's it. Anarchism is a minor footnote in the history of modern Libertarianism. Yet the Misplaced Pages article on Libertarianism leads people to believe that Anarchism and modern Libertarianism are synonymous. Ddd1600 put it well when he said that "To conceptually overlap libertarianim and anarchism is an academic act of treason." For anybody even vaguely familiar with modern Libertarianism...her edits on the Libertarianism page are nothing short of vandalism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Misconstruing people's arguments is also bad etiquette. As I have said over and over again, some libertarians are anarchists and some are not. That is supported by so many refs on the web it seems absurd people would keep WP:Soapboxing about it. But since they do, I'm working on putting in more refs making that point clear. Dealing with constant accusations and demands I stop editing the page just ticks me off and makes me reluctant to edit at all. That's why it must stop. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i am currently reviewing your sources Carol, "I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999 By Carl Watner p 56" here is the 3rd example you have cited which actually contradicts your argument. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on Libertarianism uses some form of the word Anarchism 115 times while the Britannica article only uses some form of the word 5 times. How do you explain that discrepancy? Well, the Misplaced Pages article is a collection of references collected by an Anarchist while the Britannica article was written by the vice president of the CATO institute...a Libertarian think tank which is the 5th most influential think tank in the world. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This silliness continues with this and this silly harassing WP:Soapbox. At what point does one do a WP:Ani?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeni

Is it appropriate to refer to other editors as "wikipedia scum", even if no individuals are identified?

See this comment by the admin User:Jeni. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To state that there are some scummy editors on Misplaced Pages isn't a personal attack, it's an observation (otherwise, we wouldn't have this board, WP:AIV, and ANI would be pretty dead). I'm not getting involved in the conflict between you and Boleyn, but there's nothing in there that actually refers to you, so we can't assume it was refering to you without potentially opening doors you may not want opened (if you or other editors wish to open them, that's not my business). But, on this issue, I will say that there's nothing inappropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters here, but Jeni is not an admin. --Rschen7754 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I didn't assume that it was referring to me, and didn't make that this request on the basis of any such assumption. And sorry, I thought Jeni was an admin. Thanks for the correction on that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"You rebel scum." Doc9871 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A generalized statement that some editors are wikipedia scum is a personal attack (for example, "don't let the wikipedia scum get you down"). This is not the same as referring to someone specific (even if they're not named). In other words, if it's a generalization, it's not. If it's obviously directed at specific editors, it is. Swarm 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark resolved as a misunderstanding that has been resolved. No issue here. Netalarm 14:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:PETA

There has been a lot of incivility at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This takes place against a background of very strong disagreements over POV/content, but here I am specifically raising issues of WP:NPA. (The talk page gets archived rapidly, so much recent talk has already been archived.)

I am particularly concerned about a long-ongoing pattern of comments by User:SlimVirgin, directed at editors with whom she disagrees. With a few exceptions, these are not "personal attacks" in the usual dictionary sense of gross insults based on personal characteristics, but rather, I'm thinking of the nutshell at NPA, the concept of commenting on content rather than commenting on the editor. Recently, such comments have been directed at others , and very repeatedly at me: , , , , , , and . These examples (which are a small collection of the most recent, with others, sometimes much nastier than any of these, going back to when I first became an editor) are not terribly incivil on the face of it. They might even appear to be statements of fact about me, although they very much are not, very much misrepresenting what I had done in my edits. But the problem, as I see it, is that they personalize me, and discuss me in lieu of discussing content. They might be appropriate comments at my user talk, or at dispute resolution pages such as this one, but they are in article talk space. They have the effect of implying that my views are unique to me and not shared by any other editors in the talk (untrue), and of implying that I am some sort of crank or troll whose opinions are suspect, and therefore, when SlimVirgin disagrees with my opinions, her position must necessarily be correct, because mine could not possibly be.

I have tried to explain this at SlimVirgin's user talk: , , and , with mixed results: and .

I must also point out that there is tension in both directions. SlimVirgin herself is the target of incivility, such as this recent comment by User:TheHerbalGerbil: . However, in recent months, that last diff is a one-time occurrence, in contrast to what I see as a long-term pattern, and I myself have avoided making any comments about SlimVirgin's motivations.

In my opinion, a good outcome would be for editors in that talk to focus on content and not on one another. I realize that there is only so much that this notice page can do, but my hope is that some uninvolved editors might be able to help move involved editors in that direction, or to help in other ways that I have not thought of. Thanks in advance. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin notified: .

TheHerbalGerbil notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the first four diffs you provided and cannot see a wikiquette issue. The article talk page is a little tense, but that is to be expected given that PETA is a highly controversial topic. You are perfectly correct that discussions should be about edits and not editors, but there comes a time in protracted disputes where it may be necessary to raise questions about procedures and I can't see any undue language from SlimVirgin (I'm not commenting on the accuracy of her remarks). Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said originally, this isn't really about grossly undue language, so you shouldn't expect to see that. And you might want to consider looking at all the diffs I provided rather than stopping part way through. The issue as I perceive it is very much one of a pattern, rather than an isolated occurrence of something blatant, and one needs to look at, at least, everything I documented here to begin to see that pattern. (I don't know, maybe I should have provided even more diffs, but it gets to be a tough call with respect to tl;dr.)

There is a real asymmetry in that SlimVirigin repeatedly makes comments about me and other editors in ways that I do not make comments about her, and it goes beyond "raising questions about procedures" to raising questions about whether editors should be editing at all if they disagree with her. It becomes very difficult to edit constructively when, at every step, one has to defend oneself against suggestions that one is some sort of crank, and when such suggestions are provided instead of arguments based on page content. I wonder, based on what you said, whether this is something that can only be made clear after assessing the factual accuracy of her comments, and perhaps that is asking for something that WQA cannot provide. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the diffs provided, there is simply no substance to the claim that SlimVirgin has engaged in uncivil behaviour. This is not a WQA issue and I urge the editor to show better faith in his engagements on the talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's frustrating to me that you would see it that way. To me, it seems obvious that "Tryptofish, stop reverting my edits for the hell of it... You seem quite happy to introduce inconsistencies in formatting and long-windedness, rather than let my edits simply stand." is incivil, unless one believes the statement that I revert edits for the hell of it, and the statement that I happily introduce inconsistencies in formatting and long-windedness, are statements of fact. I do not see how that would lead anyone to conclude that it was I who showed bad faith in these engagements, unless one believes the accusations. I don't know, maybe for uninvolved editors it sounds plausible on the face of it that these things could be true, without actually seeing what happened in context. Maybe WQA is just not set up in a way that makes it possible to see what is going on here. By way of the history of these interactions, perhaps it would help if I point to what happened when I first began as an editor: , . This has been a pattern over time, starting before it was even possible for me to have been here long enough to have reverted or to have introduced bad formatting etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said when I first posted here, what I hope for is for editors to comment on content rather than on one another at that talk page. Surely, I am not wrong about that, am I? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mir Harven

Mir Harven (talk · contribs) started a post on the Croatian language talk page with "I don't know what kind of therapy would suit you (if any), but your hysteric idiocies are all too easy refutable. You simply do not deserve to be taken seriously (except as a psychiatric case)."

I reverted the edit, and asked him to stop the personal attacks. He responded with "The user referred to is a psychiatric case, so posting a snapshot diagnosis is not contrary to the rules of polite conversation", and then restored his edits. (Which I have again deleted.)

Since I'm involved, I don't feel I should take disciplinary action, but this is a bit ridiculous. He has been warned several times on previous occasions to stop personal attacks, including one I see that resulted in a block (here).

— kwami (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hand written note, for what it's worth. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl

This wouldn't be a big deal if there was not a history of User:Jimintheatl being uncivil but there is and I simply don't think editors should have to put up with it. He has been asked not to be rude after calling me "Captain Finger-Wag. He has again done it. He has been edit warring at Beck University and, IMO, he should have been blocked considering his record.(Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Cptnono (Result: protected)} Protection of the page was good enough since something might be possible after some discussion. However, him purposely poking others' buttons is not helping anything and needs to stop. Any chance an admin can remind him of this so that if it does continue and an ANI regarding his behavior will not be too knee-jerk if it does? I am sure I could pull all sorts of innapropriate comments from his history but realy I just want him to simply stop which isn; that much to ask.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1

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

This user has come into a dispute at McKownville, New York and accused me of edit warring which I have not come close to doing as a real investigation of the history will show that it is not edit warring as other editors are doing more than I am and two of my edits were to remove a left over parentheses from others editing the article and that type of clean-up is not related to the dispute. I asked on the editor's talk page to please stay off my talk page and he came back. Per WP:Harrassment being asking to stay off another's talk page is a right of any wikipedian. I dont want any drama and am trying to work hard on User:Camelbinky/sandboxII and other productive work and dont want this drama. Todd is trying to instigate further embarressment and dramatize this dispute which is already being handled at WP:AN/I and at the content dispute noticeboard. His intervention was for no reason other than to humiliate me, this is egregiously wrong behavior.Camelbinky (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am closing this frivolous and baseless complaint. You are obviously engaged in edit warring and you need to stop or you will be blocked. You should thank Toddst1 for taking the time to point out your poor behaviour in editing this article and accept his advice. Eusebeus (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this as I do not feel it was taken serious and I am not engaged in edit warring, please take the time to actually look at the history and not just whether or not my name shows up in the history list but to actually see WHAT I did in the particular edit. I did not edit war, the proper procedure was taken; someone made an edit, I reverted with my explanation in the edit summary, discussion ensued at the Village pump, what I thought was a compromise was offered by someone else at the village pump, I implemented the compromise. There was no edit warring and therefore accusing me of such was meaningless and only occurred after the editor I took to AN/I complained to Todd that I should be "punished" too because Todd warned him about his incivility.Camelbinky (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason this user wants to reopened this is because he got his wrists slapped here. Bjmullan (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution