This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 22 September 2009 (→Misunderstandings escalating with User:Ottava Rima, from WP:RSN: suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Active alerts

User:Jonhan

This user has used bad language on my talk page and failed to stop bothering me after I have explicitly ask him to stop. The dispute is about him claiming a source in an article being undue, and I followed the request comment request on the WT:ANIME page by user collectonian to this page to give comments on a dispute, stating per the policy, we should not call a source undue if no other sources are present.(as general proceedings) Some arguments were made on the page and the discussion did not seem to be favouring the user in question, I suggested him to ask for help in WP:ANIME's talk page or the RS notice board if he is really having problems. Things seems to have died down for quite sometime, then the user in question came to my talk page accusing me of making up a policy. Even after I have repeatedly showed him quotes of the undue page, he kept accusing me of dodging his questions and slowly developed bad languages in his replies. I asked him to stop bothering me for a few times, and even warned him not to do so in the last occasion, with no result and kept being accused by him. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from saying that Mythsearcher pulled something out of his/her "Toosh" I can't see any bad language. In addition, Jonahan has apologized for the perception that he/she was using bad language. I don't see any issue here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, he is still bothering me on my talk page. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The user had continued to act uncivil after Toddst1 left a note on his talk page. Confirming his personal attack used is indeed deliberate. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier if you included the diffs. jonhan (talk · contribs): insult, reply to warning on insult(s) - I don't think Jonhan understands that this isn't acceptable behaviour, yet.

• Procedural question for knowledgeable people (sorry) - Does this need a new section or reopening or escalation? Or? I lightheartedly hope I am trainable.- Sinneed 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quite self-explained. Toddst1 approached the user, s/he continued to insist his/her personal attacks are true. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Breach of rule:Defamation of historical leaders,personal attack on country and personal anger/outburst about established facts

In this page there have been personal attacks on Historical figure (J.L.Nehru-The first Prime minister of India),general outburst and provoking comparisons in a history article (e.g. China has a seat in UN.India cant comprehend that) and several breaches by user named http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xingdong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was warned once as you can see in archives but he pleaded that he uses a college internet connection.Now he has made discussion page an personal battleground.I encourage you to view archives of talk page (both his personal as well as article's talk page) given above and see yourself countless rule breaking and provoking remarks by user XINGDONG. Swift&silent (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edit- linkified name. Usernames are case-sensitive! --King Öomie 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry King Öomie.I dont know how to insert user link (I am somewhat new to wikipedia) so I am providing URL to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xingdong Swift&silent (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks against me and another User

Earlier today I made a mistake with Huggle and 208.38.59.163 alerted me to this, by asking why I reverted and making borderline attacks against me , I replied on his talk page here, apologizing for my mistake and alerting him to WP:Civil . He still continued to message me when User:Kingoomieiii joined the conversation. It finally ended with him insinuating that King was my boyfriend. . He has already been blocked for this before and still continues to persist.--SKATER 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really that "borderline". He told you you needed your head checked. --King Öomie 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today SKATER called me a vandal two times then issued a non-apology apology. I called him on it, where he admitted he didn't even read what he was reverting and calling vandalism. Out of the blue this King guy jumps in, inserting himself into a conversation that was nowhere near any sort of boiling point that would require a third party. Then Skater claimed my commenting on the content was a personal attack on some editor(s) who wrote the opening paragraph of that article probably a long time ago that I don't even know about. So King again decides to be involved and continues this 2-on-1, obviously very protective of his Skater Boi...so it seemed a reasonable assumption they were in a relationship, which I commented on that seems to be the source of this complaint as it was the only thing declared a "personal attack" (one of the most overused phrases on WP) in my response before this report. I explained myself and mentioned I considered this matter closed as I assumed good faith (something Skater claims to have done to me but has little evidence indicating that) and I even complimented him several times in this "PERSONAL ATTACK" of mine where I call him such vile things as a bigger person that a lot of other on WP, a decent person, a good guy and *HORROR* someone who can learn from past mistakes! This whole thing was started by Skater and could have been ended by him with a simple, non-conditional apology. Skater is now continuing to escalate this while I was more than willing to let bygones be bygones even though he called me a vandal (twice, although according to him that's not a personal attack), unconstructive (twice), attacker of previous article editors and uncivil. Oh, and I have never been blocked from this before so there's another false accusation. Sorry for saying you should get your head examined, you've proven yourself a totally rational person. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments justified a personal attack. They were disrespectful and didn't improve the situation. Your assumptions to comment that they were engaged in a relationship was nothing more than a clever way to hide an insult. Also, Misplaced Pages is a free-exchanging, interactive web site; in which, allows everyone to participate or comment on a situation. Someone butting into a situation happens everyday(ex. like here). On Misplaced Pages, refering to someone as a vandal is not considored a personal attack but rather an informative insertion to describe someone vandalising articles on Misplaced Pages or causing disruption to the overall integrity of Wikispace, as long as the direct was not obviously degrogative in any way.(I get called a vandal all the time but of course, not for the reason stated per vandalism.) While it can be frusterating, staying cool when editing gets hot is the only accurate way to approach the problem. Therefor, any further issues regarding any type of problem with edit conflictions or edit warring should be discussed first so the adjacent parties can come up with a resolution. If that fails, getting the opinions of other editors is appropriate; that way a reasonable consesus can be made. --A3RO (mailbox) 23:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you don't take these proceedings seriously, 208. "My Skater Boi"? If that's not an attack on me, it certainly is towards Skater. Drop the sarcasm. For all the praise you give it, I'm fairly certain your response to his apology was classified as a "Dick Move". And it's called Talkpage Stalking, thank you very much. --King Öomie 18:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as both parties have had their chance to explain their story; and that the information provided above is adequate for the situation, a cease and desist is in order. At this time, this issue shall be marked as resolved. Please remember to use civility when writing to other users. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

user:Scientia est opulentia -- his allegations of my "destructive" editing

I am seeking third-party intervention in a dispute I am having with user:Scientia est opulentia, who has made allegations on a talk page here and in the edit summary here that I make a practice of "destructive edits" that warrant the action of administrators. The use of such language is a clear implication by the user that I am vandalizing Wiki articles, which is an accusation that is unwarranted, baseless and offensive. The remarks are likely to, and possibly have been intended to, prejudice other users' views of my edits.

I use a single purpose account to edit articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. I use an SPA because of concerns over the punitive approach of the religion towards dissidents and therefore the need to retain my anonymity, which is something my non-JW-focused account doesn't provide. On my user page I make it plain that I do not like the practices and attitudes of that religion, but I also go to great effort to ensure my edits to articles are soundly based, accurate, and supported by reliable and verifiable sources. I have recently made an extensive rewrite of the article on Joseph Franklin Rutherford, a former Watch Tower Society president, expanding it and adding references, and I carry out ongoing patrols of JW pages to promptly remove vandalism and poorly sourced statements, either pro- or anti- the religion. My edits do acknowledge the achievements of the religion. Those that portray it in less than a favorable light are fair and balanced and add to the factual information at Misplaced Pages on the religion and its history, beliefs and practices. Interestingly, a complaint was recently made that my edits to Bible Student movement were biased towards the Watch Tower Society.

Scientia est opulentia and I have disagreed on some points and have stated our respective cases on article talk pages. When, on one of those pages, he claimed my editing "tends to be destructive", I replied with some criticisms of his own edits, which invariably draw from only one source -- the publications of his religion. He subsequently made a complaint accusing me of making a personal attack on him, but later commented: : "I hope that in future things will become better." Two weeks later, in opposing my proposal to add an external link to an article, he repeated his offensive remark. I have initiated an RfC over the appropriateness of the link, and am happy to argue the pros and cons of that issue there. I have been bold with my edits but also seek consensus. What I don't expect is derogatory remarks claiming a pattern of destructive behavior.

I have twice requested this user to either substantiate his allegations or to retract and apologise. His explanation here accused me of distorting facts, carrying out a vendetta and making a practice of attacking and offending, all of which I deny. After a break from editing, he has returned with this commment and a revert of my edits in response to my concerns over the accuracy of a historical claim in a Watchtower magazine. This is clearly a dismissal of my concerns without addressing the issue. I would like some intervention to extract from him and undertaking to cease such behavior. LTSally (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've not looked at this in depth yet, but right off the bat, I'm trying to reconcile your statement that you "go to great effort to ensure my edits to articles are soundly based, accurate, and supported by reliable and verifiable sources" with the edit that you link in your first paragraph where you were trying to keep the link "http://deathorobedience.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html" in the article. Given WP:SPS, could you speak to that?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to an audio recording which was hosted at a blog. There are cautions at WP:EL over providing external links to blogs, but they are not specifically included. I also noted that "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources" may also be considered as external links. I pushed for it, but have accepted the consensus view against it. It was an unusual case, but the information there was pertinent to the article and figured there was no harm in trying. This, however, is no evidence of destructive editing. I followed WP procedures and accepted the result. LTSally (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

possible libel on a user/talk page?

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

On the user Biophys' user/talk page, he writes that he received death threats from "Russian supporters of Vladimir Putin". To connect these individual's acts directly to a public figure that has nothing to do with the dispute, and to make a point of labeling them "Russians", this sounds like libel and perhaps a tinge of prejudice to me. Their nationality and who they support are of no importance, as the seriousness of a death threat remains the same regardless of these factors. It seems like an attempt to vilify Vladimir Putin and Russians as a whole. Imagine if someone said that but replaced Putin with Obama, and Russians with African Americans.

I'm not sure what the policy is on this sort of thing on user/talk pages though and I would like some input.

For a point of reference, according to the wiki page libel, "In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." LokiiT (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems this issue involved more parties and is currently under review at the arbitration page. Therefor, this section will be marked appropriately. Please forward any evidence or comments to that section's devoted request area. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kale Reeves

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.

Kale Reeves (talk · contribs) Background: I have been editing Flinders Ranges mogurnda adding inline citations and tagging material not available in the references. I placed two comments on the article talk page requesting people abide by WP:V, WP:R and WP:OR as well as making a specific comment about the spawning temp of the fish, noting that the references state 20 deg C not 24 deg C as was previously in the article. Kale Rogers changed the value back to 24 deg C and inserted a fact tag (despite the existing two cites at that point)with this edit.

The issue: The user then edited my user page page with these three edits:

• First he inserted this
• then he removed it here
• then he blanked most of my user page here

It seems to me that these actions indicate a lack of good faith and I am unsure how to proceed. - Nick Thorne 01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Thorne I am sorry that i over reacted by editing your page. but i do belive that i am right in the sence that the breeding temp for gudgeons is in fact 24 deg C. at my school we have a advanced aquaculture centre with many different professional for fish. Kale Reeves

I have undone Kale Reeves' latest edit. Here is an online source Kale can show his teachers. Kale, if you edit people's pages like that again, it will simply get you blocked. I also suggest changing your user page, as it doesn't exactly suggest you've a mature attitude towards working with other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefiantly. --A3RO (mailbox) 07:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Incivil Discussion

Hi guys, I'm new to Misplaced Pages. I am concerned about a discussion with fellow Wikipedian, User:Kingoomieiii, who is now threatening me with being blocked on my personal talk page (for calling his stance "fascist" ), after he taunted me, repeatedly being incivil and messing with my discussion posts on the Aspartame talk page.

I have read the Engaging in Incivility section of Misplaced Pages's Civility guidelines and am now thoroughly convinced that he has been incivil and trollbaiting throughout the discussion (progressively aggrovating and drawing me into being less and less civil). I wish to further discuss this to thoroughly prove him wrong and defend my own points, though I am concerned about possible punishments incurred from Misplaced Pages.

It seems that he is wholly to blame for the argument resulting in such incivility, and has done the worst of it- breeching numerous guidelines on "Direct Rudeness" and "Other Uncivil Behaviours." I said it myself in the discussion:

"You call what I say garbage, you call me a troll, you relate my sourced argument (based upon FDA documents, pages from the FDA website and news articles) to the "moon-landing conspiracy", and call me a "truther," refer to everything I say as "alledged" and "half-truths" and non-RS and non-NPOV (without any kind of sourced rebuttal), edit my posts and try to archive the discussion in an attempt to censor my arguments, all without sourcing one of your claims."

If you look at it he seems to be breeching: "Rudeness, insults, name-calling", "personal attacks", "ill-considered accusations of impropriety", "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts", "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves", "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information".

Please read the recent histories of the discussion pages on aspartame, my own page, and my brief "outburst" on his to confirm all of this.

I seriously don't think his contributions to the page/discussion are well-educated, and they seem to be working against Misplaced Pages's aims of a NPOV, and I don't think it's responsible to allow him to continue bullying and silencing Wikipedians with differering views than his own with his unpleasent, frustrating attitude and mind games.

I know I'm not completely innocent and have attacked back, but I don't want things to continue like this, and for the articles "health effects" section to remain exacly how he wants it: not portraying a fair balance of the facts. I haven't attempted an edit of the actual articles page yet, and won't until the discussion is cleared up, I intend to source peer-reviewed scientific journals and other RS as my sources, I've no intention of getting into a pathetic "undo-war" like he threatens in his most recent comment on aspartame.

Thank you. Killdec (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm seeing this here. I placed an NPA warning on your talkpage after being called a fascist, and "the problem with wikipedia" on mine. Attempting (and failing) to justify your use of a personal attack doesn't mean you didn't make a personal attack. Also, as with every other discussion page on Misplaced Pages, new posts go to the bottom. Please move this. --King Öomie 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Aspartame article currently DOES represent a balance of the facts, regardless of how fervently you believe it's a poison. Your sources are not reliable, and thus no information from them will be added to the page. You'll note that the section on 'health risks' is of a similar size to Moon_landing#Hoax_accusations, and the hoax accusations themselves are in a different article- this is not a coincidence. I'm not attempting a lockdown of the page (in fact, the page fell into its current state almost completely without my assistance)- I'm respecting the one already in place. --King Öomie 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The quoted section shouldn't be here at all- I responded to it succinctly at his talk page.

And PLEASE point out where I LIED. (Don't say it was when I called aspartame 'safe'.) --King Öomie 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"..exactly ZERO adverse effects have been proven." Is a lie. Even if we don't get into my peer-reviewed scientific publication sources, why must all products containing aspartame state 'contains a source of phenylalanine'- is it because of the adverse effects of phenylalanine on the likes of sufferers of PKU, of which aspartame is the source? Yes, it is.Killdec (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That warning is in place to alert people who are ALLERGIC to an ingredient in aspartame. A similar warning is on products containing peanuts- that doesn't make peanuts a poison. Aspartame doesn't CAUSE the condition, it exacerbates it- so does dairy. --King Öomie 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PKU is a genetic disease, not an allergy. This isn't the place for arguments, it's the place for neutral resolutions.Killdec (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU'RE taking the high ground now? Stop bringing the content dispute into it, then. I was saying that aspartame is not the CAUSE. --King Öomie 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

STOP SHOUTING. You're loud enough as it is- whether it be the cause of the condition or if "it exacerbates it" it is still a "proven adverse side effect of aspartame".Killdec (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to mince words, yes. Just like water can cause painful rashes in individuals with particular genetic diseases. --King Öomie 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so at a stretch, we've agreed to that being a lie. What was the name of that genetic disease that causes rashes when exposed to water? I've never heard of it, I've heard of allergies that cause similar symptoms...allergies can hardly be called "genetic disease" and be described as "just like" phenylketonuria. The odds of developing a water allergy are 1 in 230 million, whereas phenylketonuria affects about one in 15,000 newborns in the United States. To productively contribute to health effects of aspartame, I think one needs slightly more advanced understanding of the facts about disease. Killdec (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to take it down a few notches. Kingoomieiii, telling a user to "go troll at Asparatame controversy" is inappropriate. Killdec, in your dispute with Kingoomieiii you called him a "fascist" and a "nasty, flamebating piece of work"— both of these are personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right. I ask both of you to please focus on the content and arguments instead of accusing one another of being a shill or a troll or what have you. For the content dispute you have, please follow the guide at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We're seeing a pretty common phenomenon here: Killdec is insistent that the article tell The Truth (TM) that aspartame is a deadly killer drug, and to hell with the lack of reputable sources to back that up. It isn't going to happen. Furthermore Killdec's attacks far exceed those of Kingoomieiii in nastyness. Treating this as a symmetrical content dispute is wrong: Killdec is violating Misplaced Pages's policies and Kingoomieiii is trying to maintain them in spite of severe provocation. Looie496 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying Looie. I have never called aspartame a "deadly poison" or a "killer deadly drug", I have stated that numerous reliable sources confirm and cover some of the negative side-effects of aspartame (a simple search of Google News provides hundreds of news sources, and a simple search of Google Scholar provides thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journals (such as here, here, and here), at least some of which deserve a mention to provide a NPOV. I didn't start the attacks, I was provoked, trollbaited, if you will- which is clear from the histories of the discussion, and the reason why I'm not further fueling any arguments on the discussion pages (I am the one seeking a neutral resolution without any more unpleasantries). Killdec (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who started the attacks. Being provoked is not an excuse for a personal attack. Evil saltine (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, point taken- I'll play it cool from now on, whenever I encounter incivility and baiting. Sorry, I just want to get this issue sorted and for parts of the article to portray more of a NPOV — balancing both sides of the argument proportionately — without getting into an edit war, if need be I'll follow your advice here.

Killdec (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! A truce was called. Alert will be marked appropriately. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Revrant and consensus, NPA:

This is all triggered by an amazingly trivial content dispute. But. User:Revrant and wp:consensus,wp:NPA:

This editor seems to have a very different view of wp:consensus than the one I have. The editor seems to state that consensus cannot be reached (and is therefore not binding) until the editor's points have been addressed to the editor's satisfaction here, then here.

The editor also responded rudely when the results of a 3PO went against the editor's wishes here. Then further when I added a source that supported the content here.

Finally, the editor's posts seem vaguely ominous here. Lamenting what I feel is a potentially valuable editor's path to wp:disruption, wp:civil issues, wp:edit warring, and eventual blocking, the editor commented on my remark here.

The editor also seems to insist that objections to the editor's edits are personal attacks here.

I feel confident that at this point comments from me will only be counterproductive, and I wonder if someone else might review and possibly suggest a better understanding of consensus and personal attacks to either myself or Revrant or both. This kind of behaviour drives editors from WP.

I do reallize I could simply have never mentioned the problems with this minor edit, or not replied to the editor's posts on the talk pages. And clearly, mentioning these events at another editor's talk page was unwise of me: I have apologized for that. - Sinneed (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of consensus is discussion and the addressing of the contrasting views, which was not accomplished, this lead me to ask for a third opinion which also did not address the issue but instead went on about an unrelated discussion. Satisfaction has nothing to do with it, they were not addressed, both editors off-handedly threw WP:SYNTH and WP:OR claims at me which I found offensive given I had derived a basic meaning, which was later proven totally correct by a minor rewording found by Sinneed. Yet these claims were repeatedly thrown in my face and used to dismiss my edits and opinion in a fashion resembling bad faith, which I obviously did not have, and my point addressed only after the entire issue had been resolved.

Ominous? They were in support of the soon to be released 2010 edition and in agreement with your statement, I'm not appreciative of such a statement suggesting derision.

I agree clarity is needed, I feel my views were harshly dismissed as SYNTH and OR without basis and the continued dismissal of my edits in such a fashion as nearly personal attacks. The editors did not address my logic in the debate, and the 3PO didn't either, and when an article was found showing my deduction was correct the entire time I was further threatened should my behavior "continue" by another editor.

I do recognize I was not totally civil, but that was largely due to how derisively my edits and deduction were dismissed without discussion or debate as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Revrant (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that the words "I will not relent" are in practice often equivalent to "I am about to be blocked". In a one-editor-vs-three-editors dispute, the one editor can't win by force and must either convince the others or back down. You might find that if you acknowledge the possibility that you are going to lose this dispute, others will be more willing to pay attention to your views. Looie496 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You excluded the key phrase, I will not relent unless the points are addressed, you are equating asking that your points be addressed to asking for a block? I'm sorry, but I don't see the connotation. No one was arguing the basis of my inclusion until the dispute was already resolved. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand people argue the points you put forth, and I'll also add that the line was not added until the argument and my edits were disrespected and disregarded to my wit's end, it was not a preface as you imply. Revrant (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is entitled to demand anything of others in Misplaced Pages. You may request things and others may or may not answer you and your points. Everyone here is a volunteer and Wikpedians move about the Wiki as the spirit moves them from one thing to another and when they get involved in a discussion they may choose to concentrate on one aspect, perhaps what they consider to be the salient points. There is no guarantee that they will agree with you on what the main point is and you do not have any right whatsover to demand anything. The other thing is that you are best advised to realise that you may be wrong, that others think differently to you and when it is apparent that the concensus is going against you, a little good grace goes a long way. Acting like a petulant child is never going to win you any credit nor will it gain you any respect. Quite the reverse. - Nick Thorne 06:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that was incredibly insulting and personal, I can't recall the last time I was called a petulant child, I'm sure such foul personal attacks will go over well. Good thing this is the board for that, I have a damned well outlined right to demand people discuss my points and not disregard them with fallacious attacks on ther credibility, it's called WP:FAITH, perhaps you've heard of it? If someone will not engage you on the points you have made, perhaps you could tell me exactly what the purpose of the discussion page is? Realizing that I may be wrong is a perfectly viable solution when I'm uncertain, when I have the evidence right in my hand as I did here and people are ignoring it and attacking me with bad faith assertions it's hard to implicitly say "I may be wrong", especially when being threatened.

Perhaps we should both refrain from "acting" like "children", because if I see another personal attack directed at me I will report it. Revrant (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not care less about the content dispute you are involved in, which after all is only about a game. My comments are related to the way you are conducting yourself. If you wish to "report me" go right ahead, I have nothing to hide. However, you may be better advised to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Nick Thorne 09:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

High concern from someone lodging blatant personal attacks on a Wikiquette alerts page, I would suggest you drop the stick yourself given your personal attack. Revrant (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I made no personal attack. What I said was that acting like a petulant child is never going to win you any credit, nor will you it gain you any respect. This is a comment about behaviour, not a personal attack, and your response to which speaks volumes. You seriously need to take a good hard look at your own behaviour before you start casting aspersions against others. I'm done talking with you, have a nice life. - Nick Thorne 07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You seriously need to educate yourself about WP:NPA, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence., calling another user's behavior as that of a petulant child is a personal attack, have a nice life and keep your attacks to yourself, thank you. Revrant (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This part of a talkpage shows a similar high level of sensitivity. However, it is clear that disagreeing about policy or on editorial judgement should not be taken as an insult to the person. I suggest that revrant recalibrate his/her notion of a "personal attack" and not take it personally if consensus is against giving weight to his/her considerations. When several editors are saying the same thing about another's behaviour, it's always worthwhile thinking that they may be right. I have read the WoW talk page, and the point where revrant says "Oh, and WP:SYNTH, since if I see it used against me again I will file it as a baseless and continued attack on my character and bad faith" comes somewhat out of the blue and seems like an instance of bad faith in itself - as if other users are disagreeing because they want to insult revrant, not because they simply disagree. For what it's worth, revrant's content concerns did seem to be clearly addressed; an addressed concern is not the same as a shared concern.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a poor comparison, that user has admitted in the past that they did not understand policy and that they were incorrect, the issue there was them not recognizing policy and my utter frustration with trying to explain it repeatedly to the point of civility being lost between both parties. It was a recurring theme before they understood the policy, now coexistence is total and harmonic. Yes, it was out of the blue when it was thrown at me from left field while I felt the debate might progress toward consensus, and it was continually used against me as well as WP:OR in order to dismiss me without discussion. That is not in line with Misplaced Pages policy, and it is most assuredly bad faith accusations. I have no issue with people disagreeing, but when they dismiss me utterly and contend my evidence is baseless, made up nonsense, and will not argue it, it is understandably frustrating and counterproductive.

My concerns were not addressed period during the debate, the 3PO ignored them and discussed something else, and they were finally addressed by Atama in a hyperbolic fashion afterward, the concerns were so dismissed, so demeaned as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, that I lost my civility, and now I am being told that I should not have. I realize that, but to suggest only I am to blame is just ludicrous, you need only see the repeated "warnings" from these people with no authority, which I viewed as threats and responded in kind with, to see that the argument was not handled correctly and by spewing policy dismissal at my edits instead of honestly debating them it created a hostile editing atmosphere, and I will say it again, to dismiss someone's views utterly as fallacious policy violations and threaten them is not acceptable. Revrant (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors involved in the discussion and a target of the personal attacks. I was very disappointed because up until that point it was a simple disagreement and seemed to be handled properly. Two people had different views on the content (I was somewhat on the fence about it myself) and instead of edit-warring, everyone was discussing policy and debating the proper way to use the source. Almost out of left field, however, the discussion turned personal when Revrant stated that an opinion was needed from a more "learned editor" than those who had disagreed with them. I objected to that characterization and made it clear while attempting to avoid responding in kind. Their behavior just went downhill from there, lecturing and demanding with heavy use of CAPITALS, bold and italic text, and attempting to belittle other editors. At that point I just backed away and stopped commenting, I didn't want any part of that. I declared my intention to do so at Revnant's talk page and my reason for doing so and I've stayed out of it since. -- Atama頭 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I was a target of your personal attacks, however it had gone sour before that point, Sinneed had reverted both of my edits and not debated the reasoning, instead proposing changes that would not reflect the source and demanding we wait for the 2010 edition before the change could be made. The 3PO did not address the concerns and instead commented mostly on things they were not asked to comment on, I assumed they did not understand what a 3PO was for, hence "learned" and the RfC, that was not directed at you or Sinneed. You did the same, and threatened me repeatedly, and at no point did I belittle an editor, and you did not stop, you continued and took it to my talk page and threatened me there.

Suffice to say I think this is resolved, I behaved in a highly defensive fashion that was counterproductive, they assumed bad faith, rejected my views without discussion, and threatened action against me and I am to blame for letting it get to me and reacting in kind. Eye for an eye is not a Misplaced Pages policy, I should recognize that in the future. Revrant (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revrant:

"As much as I was a target of your personal attacks"-You were not the target of any personal attacks that I have read. If you were, then wikilinking/quoting them here would be great, as the HUGE amount of discussion of this 1-word change might mean an interested editor would miss the attack.

Yes, you and I both removed one another's edits (we disagreed), then I yielded since you made it clear that you would not accept consensus (even if I were correct as to what consensus was) and that the edit was simply going to stay in. Your change stayed in the article throughout the remainder of the dispute.

I did not demand anything, except better behaviour from you, which I still do not see. It seems to me that everyone who disagrees with you is not experienced enough, not understanding, or acting in bad faith.

Disagreement about content is not assumption of bad faith.

Disagreement about policy is not assumption of bad faith either: but refusal to follow the community's view of policy can result in one being blocked, and thus the warnings. It doesn't mean the warning editor is right 100% of the time either, and I firmly state that I won't hit 100%... but I will try. Hard.

It is important to understand that the warnings I put on your talk page are not threats. I am an ordinary editor, and only community-elected community members usually called admins actually implement any actions (blocking, for example). I guess I could threaten to stomp my little feetsies, or talk mean to someone, but those are about the only threats I can make stick in WP.

You argue that there was no discussion, but among the various editors there were many kilobytes of discussion. I do understand that you did not feel your points were addressed. This is what it means to disagree: at our best, we listen to what others say and if they don't address our concerns, we still don't agree. Insisting that that means no real discussion has taken place, or that it means those who disagree are acting in bad faith or don't have enough experience is a Bad Thing.

- Sinneed (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I did view the warnings as threats, those were what I was referencing, I don't feel a need to go around warning users with report-reprisal unless it is deserved, though it may have just been defensiveness.

I would have had my concern been addressed in a proper manner.

Hardly, I've had many people disagree with me only to learn they were correct and come to understand new policy, for quite a while people cited Notability as a requirement of content, I used this under an assumption as well until corrected. To suggest everyone I disagree with, to me, is automatically negated as a worthy party is a little insulting to me as a person.

Dismissal of concerns with policy is.

No, of course it's not, but if the community does not address the concerns it certainly leads to litigation such as this.

Indeed, I took it to mean this would happen, which I viewed as threatening, and after all why not, this is such a pleasant experience, I can't recall the last time I was mocked with name-calling on Misplaced Pages by an established editor.

I feel there was no discussion of the concern, my logic, or my deduction, that is not what it means to disagree, that is what it means to be a politician. Misplaced Pages is certainly full of politics, if you don't address someone's concerns, and go so far as to dismiss them as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it's certainly not beneficial to the discussion. I realize "demanding" that you debate the concerns and the points may seem silly to you, but minus the demand it's how Misplaced Pages works, it's what the pages are for, and if it appears a 3PO doesn't know what they're doing, suffice to say I don't feel they have enough experience.

As succinctly as possible, this could have been totally avoided by addressing my concerns, you could have said "This is how I think you're seeing this information, this is what I think you're deducing from it, this why I don't agree and how I see it differently." instead of just addressing outlying concerns and dismissing it as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In the future, realize dismissing the views of another as baseless research and made up conclusions is not beneficial to the discussion and could be inflammatory. Further insinuating that when they drop it all in spite of litigation such as this and continue in good spirit, even to agree with you, that their new posts were somehow malicious and ominous, well, it does nothing but generate suspicion and hard feelings. Revrant (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

After review of the edits themselves you were a bit overly aggressive in trying to prove your point, which is understandable when it feels like you're being shot down or ganged up upon and which is why I believe this issue got out of hand in the first place. Anywho, as you stated an eye for an eye is no where near an appropriate way to approach a issue, let alone a discussion. However, you mentioned you recognized this mistake and took responsibility for it. Lets keep it cool. :) --A3RO (mailbox) 06:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was aggressive in trying to have my point discussed, it was not, and indeed, it came to seem that way. Indeed, unfortunately I am the only even partially repentant party, and despite having a PA lodged against me in this very discussion I intend to keep it "cool". Revrant (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do. :) - On that note, before this alert turns into a book :), this discussion will marked appropriately, as long as the involved parties are aware; no further action is needed. Thank you for your patience and understanding to stay cool when things get heated, which they often do. We've all been there. Thanks for your contributions and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 10:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Agames

User:Agames created an article about Alberto Rey Games Hernandez, whom general consensus seems to agree is a non-notable person, and the user even admits to having creating the article because he is the son of the subject. Several users tried to explain on the AfD page about WP:BIO and especially WP:COI, but Agames is getting all heated and now even getting to the point of calling other users names. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yikes! - very personal nastiness, in badly spelled all-caps. - Sinneed (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned Agames. - Sinneed (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of the edits, User:Agames violated WP:NPA on the article's nomination deletion entry, referenced here. The article has been deleted and a Level-4 WP:PA ONLY warning was given, per his editing history, i feel, this will be his only warning. --A3RO (mailbox) 10:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:83.104.50.65

I'm having problems with a particularly obnoxious anonymous editor. We had a slight clash over an un-NPOV edit that they made which constituted vandalism. I reverted this edit, and so this user accused me of being POV by reverting the vandalism. Since then this user has been posting vandalism templates and quite frankly nonsensical messages on my talk page in response to posts I made on their talk page. I reckon by now they're probably trolling but I'm getting a bit fed up. Any advice on what can be done? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted one of the nonsensical templates he posted on your talk page and warned him. If he continues, or you see him engaging in similar conduct with any other user, please report him to ANI so that he may be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :). Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User systematically reverting my edits

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Hi, Simon Speed has systematically reverted a large number of my edits but no argumentation has been effective to change that behavior. The problem has happened mainly in the Safe sex article.--20:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. After plucking through the discussion on the talk page it seems there is a problem with sources being added where you feel they aren't reliable, correct? --A3RO (mailbox) 21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the major problem is that he systematically reverted (deleted) all my edits (15) and re-expressed that motivation in the talk page, instead of trying to improve on top of those. His main expressed justification for those reverts was that I removed sources, but he made no effort to readd just those sources, since my edits were much representative than that and more focused on whether content was appropriate and sourced, and less about source reliability.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the etiquette problem. Maybe I am being dense.

I do see an content dispute. I do see some too-large changes, some of which are problematic, some are not, all being done at once. A single revert made MANY changes.

Maybe dispute resolution will help. No matter how good intentions are, the number of people with profoundly strong points of view is going to be very difficult. I would say that to edit such a very contentious article, you will probably need both patience in applying new proposed edits and a steady temper. Gonna be a bumpy ride. Sorry I have nothing more helpful to offer. - Sinneed (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• *I don't see the notification at User talk:Simonxag. I applied one. Please be sure to do so next time. - Sinneed (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been content disputes between 2 editors, myself and User:Zodon on one side, v. User:Nutriveg, which were leading to an edit war. Neither I nor Zodon has edited the article since 2009-09-16, but I have asked at 2 projects for other editors' input. In the discussion Nutriveg described my comments as "personal attacks" (would editors please inform me if I am doing something wrong). However, I have since come to the conclusion that Nutriveg is not acting in good faith and added an accusation (with evidence) to this effect to the talk page. I do not think this is a POV dispute: some of Nutriveg's edits are against my POV but some I'd make myself if I didn't care about NPOV. I think Nutriveg's edits look bold, even occasionally constructive, but are in fact a very subtle form of mischief. Help! --Simon Speed (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note also the following edits this user has made to their talk page:- 2009-09-19 2009-04-20 2009-03-12 2008-12-14 . --Simon Speed (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It look's like a wikiquette problem for me, the user systematically revert all edits because of specific expressed concerns without proposing changes to adequate content. And says he will continue to do so "but feel I must simply revert much of it". He makes personal attacks (accusations) instead of discussing content: "Nutiriveg is deleting large quantities of sourced material", "which suggests they are not an expert editor, but they have shown no interest in concensus", "This editor is making a point of removing well sourced material from a variety of articles". And my edits are in bad faith: "is not acting in good faith", "I am dealing with an editor who is not acting in good faith", "I have come to seriously doubt this user's good faith.", "I have ceased to assume good faith". --Nutriveg (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My assessment is that Nutriveg is edit-warring against multiple other editors to assert bizarre claims, such as that rubbing of other's genitals constitutes unsafe sex. I am perfectly willing to believe that Nutriveg is acting in good faith, but it needs to be made clear that this confrontational approach if continued is going to lead pretty quickly to a block or ban. This is not the first arena in which Nutriveg has been disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing content here but to not left your assessment alone. First the actual phrase was "Rubbing each other genitalia", secondly I provide sources: ("genital ulcer diseases (such as genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid) and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection are primarily transmitted through contact with infected skin or mucosal surfaces"), "Genital herpes is transmitted from one person to another through sexual contact. Sexual contact includes (...) rubbing the genitals together without being separated by clothing.".

You're in no position to qualify events you were directly involved.--Nutriveg (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• This has been taken to ANI. Added note to the talk page. - Sinneed (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluecanary99

After several minor breaches of wikiquette, User:Bluecanary99's actions have culminated in a lengthy personal attack against me.

After I complained ] about User:Bluecanary99 misquoting me and their use of scare quotes ], they suggested that I leave the discussion and wikipedia]. After complaining about that remark, they accused me of attacking them and threatened to file a complaint.

After a hiatus of several days from both parties, User:Bluecanary99 has written a lengthy post attempting to unmask me, and demanding that I identify myself. Their complaints there seem to focus on what my identity may be, and not the content of my edits. I was content to allow the breaches in wikiquette slide, but User:Bluecanary99's latest attack against me is a serious issue. -Nathalmad (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluecanary99 is engaged in uncivil discussions with another party on the WP:COI/N. --A3RO (mailbox) 19:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the trouble the admins must put themselves to process the above complaint. It is a "retribution" complaint lodged in response to a COI alert I filed regarding the above user. Please see that appropriate section for additional information. Again, my apologies that the valued administrators and moderators have been dragged into this issue. I was, myself, surprised to become a "target" of this group after attempting to make an edit to a fairly minor article that is being "patrolled" by it (thumbnail version is that user is part of a wikigang that are members of the fan club of a podcast host who has extolled his fan club to "patrol" his bio and use whatever means necessary to destroy anyone nominating it for deletion; I know that sounds too odd to believe, please see appropriate edit logs stretching back more than a year on this - it took me about 4 hours to bring myself up to speed and realize what was going on). Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I would strongly recommend no sanction be posted against Nathalmad to prevent yourself becoming "targeted"; user is able to call on a 'noise machine' of like-minded editors to drown out and shout-down any reasoned argument. They're only sullying a small portion of wikipedia so intervention at this point is not worth the personal trauma to anyone who currently hasn't undergone the misfortune of finding themselves wrapped up in this soap opera. Most Cordially Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Amendment - In response to a flurry of activity elsewhere, I have withdrawn any and all complaints I ever had against Nathalmad/Luke Burbank or any other members of the group that "patrols" the articles in question and posted this in the COI Noticeboard. I have promised I will never attempt to edit, or even so much as read, the two articles in question. I would please plead with all members of that group to stop targeting me. I can't keep up with all complaints that are now being filed against me. Like I said, I didn't know what I was getting into when I attempted to participate in those articles. It was error. I apologize profusely and surrender unconditionally. Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute closed. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

While I am glad that most of this issue could be resolved amicably, there is still the issue of User:Bluecanary99 attempts at unmasking me, by continuing to claim I am Luke Burbank, even after the COI was closed ]. This is considered harassment, as part of WP:OUTING. I encourage User:Bluecanary99 to continue his involvement in the articles Too Beautiful to Live and Luke Burbank, as he has made some valuable contributions, some of which I have agreed with and supported on the talk pages for those articles. -Nathalmad (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I plead with you to stop harassing me. Also, please ask your compatriots to stop harassing me on my talk page. I completely give up. I surrender. I don't know what else I can do. You're not Luke Burbank. You're whomever you say you are. Please stop stalking me. I apologize for editing TBTL and Luke Burbank. I've promised I will never edit nor view those pages again. Please call off the attacks on me. Please leave me alone. Bluecanary99 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, enough. Nathalmad, all disputes regarding the issue/COI were closed. Please stop referencing to it. If this continues a temporary block of editing priveledges will be considored. Please move on. Thanks and happy editing. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluecanary99 has been blocked indefiantly for sockpuppetry. --A3RO (mailbox) 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin John Carter

An administrator John Carter has made a series of personal and rather wildly abusive attacks, because he was asked to please participate in editing and/or discussion of an article on which he has placed wthout comment a tag or tags, which I believed were placed in error.

He has repeatedly removed reasoned and brief relevant comments from his talk page, then insisted (on my talk page) that I not comment on his talk page.

His actions in this matter are somewhat disturbing; all the more because his is an administrator.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a misunderstanding that got out of hand a bit. However, if a user wishes you to stay off their talk page, the request should be respectfully carried through. Users have immediante rights over their user and talk pages. If the other afflicting party doesn't regard the request then the edits made can be removed and flagged as vandalism or even a personal attack. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a 'misunderstanding' in the least. Looks to me like John has been patient and crystal clear with this user. See here, for example. → ROUX ₪ 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the filing party is confused a bit, where the misunderstanding occured in regards to his talk page. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The filing party has accused John of making 'wildly abusive attacks' (hint: he didn't) without any basis for doing so other than to discredit him and try to win some sort of content dispute. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrook may be confused in the broadest sense of the word, in that the editor may take disagreement, even very peripheral disagreement, with the editor's work as a personal attack. I see John Carter behaving very reasonably, and Calamitybrook behaving badly, on Calamitybrook's talk page.- Sinneed 21:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do a lot of article-rating for WikiProject Neuroscience, and if somebody asks me to justify a rating, I generally feel an obligation to give at least a brief explanation. The "rules" don't require one, though. If you are unhappy with a rating, the best approach is to post on the talk page of the WikiProject, asking politely whether somebody else would like to take a look at the article and make an assessment of whether the change in rating was justified, and what it would take to get a higher rating. I'll second the point that C is actually a pretty high rating, though -- a seriously incomplete article will be rated "Start", and for most WikiProjects the highest rating short of GA (which requires a special process) is B. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This might of been unintentional, possibly? Not sure but I don't think he ever meant to elevate it into something more. Not too sure without preceding comments from the users themselves in regards to the issue. Anywho, feel free to approach and express. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liar"

Carter specifically accuses me of being a "liar" amid other examples on my talk page. Rember Rep. Wilson??

Since my post here, he now threatens on my talk page. Forbids and deletes tame brief material on his talk page from me. (See history there.)

A clear breach -- by an administrator no less. Calamitybrook (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So that's four people so far who believe that you have over-reacted because you have misunderstood something. I'm a fifth and will also say that you appear to be trying to ratchet things up. That's not good.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liar" is a term not so easily misunderstood.

Language an administrator particularly, should more carefully consider.

Quite a red flag on administrator John Carter, who should be watched for abusive tendencies.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome

(There was already an alert raised about this user earlier this month, but since it has been marked as stale...)

As has already been noted in the previous alert, this user has a history of nominating articles for deletion in bad faith simply because s/he doesn't like them. At first these noms seems to only be relegated to lonelygirl15-related articles, but now s/he has moved on to nominating any web series in general (although to be fair, Poor Paul needs a serious rewrite but is notable) while ignoring everyone practically throwing guidelines in front of him/her to show him/her why the articles should be kept. There was also a long discussion at ANI about Otter's actions without anything being done in the end, and I just have to ask...is Otter invincible or something? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be looking to change the notability guidelines or just don't understand them, as that's what I'm working off. I'm only suggesting this as you've never added anything useful to my deletion discussions to show you do. If the articles I'm nominating are notable then why don't you show it instead of complaining all the time?--Otterathome (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Move for this to be closed as forum-shopping. There was a post here, nothing was done. It was then on AN/I for several days, and likewise no need for action was seen. So you're bringing the same thing back here? No, I don't think so. Please see this page on dispute resolution and move away from here. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure forum-shopping applies here, as "Poor Paul" is a new nomination. This would therefore be a continuation of disruptive behavior, rather than a new report of existing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like Compfunk, ZoehDahling and a host of IPs (curious...) are hell-bent on getting Otterathome sanctioned for... something. I'm not sure what, because they tend to just post dense walls of text. Frankly, if it's so outrageous it should be taken to ArbCom. I would bet cash money nothing will come of this. → ROUX ₪ 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it's "sanctioned for overreliance on his own opinions about notability of article subjects and sources". He's never met a dissenting opinion he liked, as far as I can tell from his AfD and DRV participation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The previous threads kept being edited because of new nominations, so unless there's something different about my paul nomination, I don't see anything new worth discussing.--Otterathome (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, canvassing was not my intention (even though I didn't start the previous threads), but if that's what it looks like, I'll let it go. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as forum shopping, but I do wonder what WQA can do to address this concern. Nja 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

User:Kwamikagami, upset at having been blocked on Wiktionary, has brought the dispute to this wiki by posting abusive messages on my talk page: . Each message posted to me by this user ends with gratuitous abuse, and I would like this uncivil behavior to stop. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We've got enough behavioral problems on Misplaced Pages as it is, without importing silly disputes from other wiki's. What happens in Wiktionary stays in Wiktionary. Kwami needs to drop it here, and one would think an admin with that many edits would know better. Some of that commentary would get a non-admin templated, warned, and if it continued, blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You call him a liar, without a careful and easily followed reference.

Lacking this, I'd say you've over-stepped boundaries.

Not really necessary to call an editor a "liar, regardless.

Given this, one can surmise it is at least possible that your banning action was also unreasonable.

I confess to NOT having investigated the history of this dispute, and am therefore NOT able to fully comment.

How does one deal with abusive, arrogant and unsavory administrators?

Encountering such (they are basically incompetent) is an all-to-common experience for editors.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, a minor request: Please could you ensure that the entirety of each of your edits is at the same indent level, it makes it hard to read your posts as they are now. As a rule your posts seem to start out at one indent level and then progressively unindent as you go along. Your sig seems to be always completely unindented - which makes it look like you are signing someone else's comments from further up the page. Thank you. - Nick Thorne 05:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought the dispute to EP's WP page because I was blocked from editing his WT page, and indeed from making any edits on WT whatsoever, in any namespace. kwami (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Only Kwami's first posting here occurred while blocked on Wiktionary. The second and third abusive postings occurred after Kwami had begun two sets of comments in the primary discussion room on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to Kwami's actions at Wiktionary, not having reviewed them. The language Kwami used here is certainly too harsh, but I can honestly understand his frustrations having had a similar experience with EncycloPetey on Wiktionary. (I was blocked for an hour for trivial matters and then reblocked when I challenged his actions as being contrary to Wiktionary's published guidelines.) It was an insightful experience, as I learned (through extensive discussions with another admin there) that Wiktionary's standards for punitive actions are far, far stricter than here. Blocks are handed out in a manner that would certainly lead to desysopping on Misplaced Pages. --Ckatz_spy 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to see that the focus is now moving to speculation about what may or may not have happened on another wiki. I'm further dismayed to see that abuse and personal attacks now are considered acceptable etiquette here on Misplaced Pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's calm it down. No one has said personal attacks and abuse are acceptable. As in any dispute situation, everyone needs, as soon as they realise matters are escalating, to take a step back, look at their own posts in isolation, and see if they could be interpreted as aggressive or unnecessarily stroppy (regardless of anyone else's posts). Wiktionary's blocking of namespace edits does seem problematic; I don't see the problem in principle with contacting the admin on their wikipedia page, so long as it's not block evasion to abuse. However, Kwami needed to calm down - no matter the injustice, calm language is always a good idea. That said, Encyclo, also being an admin and so understanding the wikipedia warning system, could have been rather more tactful, instead of accusing kwami of lying and being a repeat offender (there are no warnings on kwami's wiktionary talkpage). The central issue - the justness of the block - is a matter for wiktionary. But if such things spill over onto here, then please keep things just as civil as either of you were dealing with any other user.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody posting problems from another Wikiproject to another, just to prove a point is trolling the issue and should be subject to a temporary block. The edits provided were clearly a personal attack. However, since I'm unable to examine the issues beyond Misplaced Pages, I feel that the edits performed here are the ones that should be examined. --A3RO (mailbox) 09:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings escalating with User:Ottava Rima, from WP:RSN

In the past I was a fairly regular contributor at WP:RSN; I have some clear-cut views about sourcing - basically I tend to defend genuine academic sources on the basis of credentials and publisher. Just back from wikibreak I responded to a query, weighing on the side of points already made, and defending use of an academic text. This seems to be turning into a big issue for one of the people involved in the page in question. I think he was incivil, not just to me but to at least one regular on the page. I posted on his talk page and the upshot is he is now suggesting I should be banned for disruption. All I can see that I have done is disagree with his evaluation of a source. It's all on WP:RSN in the heading relating to the Oscar Wilde article, and on User:Ottava Rima's talk page. I'm only posting here because I would like it established that users should be encouraged to give their viewpoints on the noticeboard, and should not, in general, get comeback from it. Or am I missing something really obvious, and I have behaved really badly here? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really policy, nor is it necessarily an optimal long-term solution, but I think it would help if more people tried it (no one ever does, though). It's generally best to completely ignore Ottava when he loses it and begins ranting about desysopping/banning/blocking/tarring and feathering/taking to arbcom. Nothing ever comes of it, and it eventually blows over. Without even looking at the page in question, I can tell you there is a 99% chance you did nothing wrong. Ottava does truly excellent article work (really, one of our best) when he's not worked up about something, so this seems better than arguing with him/warning him/reporting him to ANI/blocking him/quitting in disgust/conceding the point to him/etc. Just continue to discuss with others (if Ottava is correct in this case, others will bring up the same point), completely tune it out if at all possible; no one is going to think less of you. No, you shouldn't have to do it, no it isn't fair, no it's not the official line, yes it drives many people nuts when this is suggested, yes I'm probably encouraging more poor behavior. But maybe give it a try and see? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution