Revision as of 05:07, 20 May 2010

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

Active alerts

Murder of Meredith Kercher‎ needs some civility coaches

This article has a long history of wp:TEND. Its subject matter has been sensationalized and polarized along national lines - particularly between US, UK, and Italian sources - both in the mass media and on-wiki. There are regular cries of POV, PA, BLPvio, etc. Gutter press sources are regularly invoked to support outlandish assertions on all sides. The regular editors have become factionalized to the point where several are baiting and goading each other on their talkpages and on the article talkpage. They all seem to believe they are WP:RGW and that this justifies their behaviour. Ongoing oversight by someone both energetic and willing to provide civility coaching is desperately needed to keep a lid on the pot. I would suggest that consideration should be given to a WP:1RR as well given recent revert cycles. LeadSongDog come howl 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This dispute seems more appropriate for Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal; please file a request there. Only 2 participants are edit-warring in a fashion that might warrant 1RR, so I'd hold off on that. If the conduct continues to go out of order on that front, raise that matter at ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User: Gun Powder Ma

User:Gun Powder Ma has repeatedly attacked me as a "wargamer" and "having comprehension problems" as shown here. , , and , while I have maintained civility towards him. I would like an administrator to deal with this continued verbal abuse.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The first step ought to be to contact them on their user talk page, explaining the problem and/or asking them to stop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have warned him in the past but he has not responded or relented. See here and .Teeninvestor (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These aren't the worst remarks I've seen, but calling someone a wargamer is certainly counterproductive (Misplaced Pages isn't a battleground, or shouldn't be). And it certainly doesn't help to imply that another editor is lacking in their capability. On balance, I think you did the right thing by bringing this matter to WQA. I will leave a polite message and see if this helps. In the meantime, please don't let such remarks provoke you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack you as a wargamer. Rather, I described you as one in a very specified context, that is your article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination), which you have been setting up as a war game between Rome and Han China in a way very similar to the hypothetic war scenarios found in numerous online wargaming forums. This approach of yours has also been palpable in articles on the military and economic history of China where you made unwarranted (and misinformed) comparisons to Rome. However, since Sheffield has asked me most politely and since my point has come across quite clear with the community deletion of your ethnocentric pamphlet, I will abstain in future from calling you a wargamer. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, his attacks continue above. And I would like to remind you that the article was redirectioned, rather than deleted (and a majority of editors voted to keep, anyways).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of "Nazi apologia"

I have edited the article Werwolf for some time. I had differences with User Yopie regarding the relevance of a subsection, in the end it got so bad that I gave up and called for a third opinion. Talk:Werwolf#Reprisal_section. Now a new editor, user:Jon Jonasson has stepped in and blanked "my" section with the edit summary "return to last version by Yopie & revert Nazi apologia". The same editor thereafter only made 1 edit, he followed my edit history to perform yet another revert in another article, this time with the edit summary "Undid revision 362067666 by Stor stark7 (talk)remove unencyclopedic self published material". This second undo is not slanderous, but rather bad style since both of the deleted sources clearly are academic works in reputable journals, the Pacific Historical Review & the "Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute". Therefore I fear the second edit was performed just in spite. Please advice. --Stor stark7 21:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly someone with a bone to pick. As half of the page was blanked without discussion, I restored it. The user in question has a mixture of questionable edits, along with some issues on the user page with continuously displaying non-free images after being advised this is against policy. -OberRanks (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Other users should get involved with this. Even after a talk page discussion was started, one of the users concerned blanked the entire disputed section and listed the reason as "per talk" , even though the talk page clearly said exactly the opposite. -OberRanks (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Iridescent.

I would like to report Irisdescent for personally attacking me. - Donald Duck (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• This alert appears to be bad cess left over from a mild edit war. This edit and edit summary (∆ here), resulted in Donald Duck complaining on Iridescent’s talk page (∆ here) in a manner that seems fairly confrontational. Iridescent’s response “piss off” basically translates to “Go away.” As such, it is not a personal attack, as the complainant contends, but is an incident of mild incivility. This confrontation strikes me as being like where one 4th grader on the playground taunts another until the other gets frustrated and makes an mildly unfortunate utterance. Then off the taunter runs to the teacher in hopes the poor SOB has to be lectured by the teacher. I suggest the complainant here simply think a bit harder about cause and effect rather than trying to pull out some measure of a “win” at the conclusion of a minor pissing contest. It takes two to play nice on the playground and there is already enough wikidrama without this complaint adding to it. Greg L (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• In no way shape or form a personal attack, a little on the kurt side yes, but in no way a olation of NPA. ---Balloonman 05:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: DD had previously started an AN report, generally I regard ANI as being the higher level and would close the WQA, but in this case, he was referred here by AN.---Balloonman 05:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Donald Duck#Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Config and User talk:Iridescent for my take on this, which, rather than answer, Donald Duck has brought here and to WP:AN. Donald, what admin action are you requesting? Because, other than maybe a block on you for tendentious editing, I can't see what admin action is required. --John (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, not a personal attack. Donald got into a minor edit war, adding an item four times (1, 2, 3, 4) and hypocritically told everyone to "take it to the talk page". Then he ran to one of the editors reverting his work with a loosely-translated "I'm going to tattle on you". Iridescent is clearly not in the wrong. Useight (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fuck off"? --A3RO (mailbox) 16:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

While crude, even fuck off is not a personal attack, only a moron would think so <---which is still not quite a personal attack, but is closer ;-)---Balloonman 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman. “Fuck” is not necessarily uncivil. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was shocked to see Iridiscent tell another editor to "piss off". There is no place for that kind of egregious personal attack in what is supposed to be a collegial work environment. Would it be considered acceptable for one colleague to tell another to "piss off" in a real-life work situation? I think not; more likely it would be a sacking offence. Administrators need to crack down on this kind of prurient language, and I think that Iridescent ought to be indefinitely blocked until he issues an abject apology, and promises not to upset other editors who behave like dishonest clots ... wait, the effects of that Californian stupid drug I tried earlier appear to be wearing off now. What a fucking waste of time this kind of nonsense is. I suggest that anyone who brings a complaint to this noticeboard should be summarily blocked, for being a thin-skinned pillock. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clever post (... wait, the effects of that Californian stupid drug I tried earlier appear to be wearing off now), Fatuorum; it made me smile. At first it appeared you were a wannabe admin who thought it necessary to drink from the Politically Correct©™® Kool-Aid. This complaint is just so much ‘neener-neener’ childishness and wikidrama. Donald Duck doth protest too much, methinks. Time to stop wasting our time and mark it resolved. Greg L (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Mark as closed. Suggest another admin watches Donald as well; I suggest going straight to a block if the pattern (editwar→rude talkpage message→AN→WQA) is ever repeated by this user. If someone nicer than me could leave a supportive message reminding them to discuss on article talk or project talk in future, that would be great. "Piss off" is suboptimal but really what this editor's behavior invited, I hate to say. Per Balloonman and Useight as well. --John (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

suboptimalis yourself John/Gunnieog. Smelling salts for the dainty are that away -->. Malleus is right, this is Californian stupid mind wonkery, and you enable this BS. Grow up and learn to live outside a bubble. By the way, your posts here mean you are now offically stalking Malleus; lovely - I see fun in all our futures. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mind wonkery"? To quote the Tasmanian Devil- "Raaragumpfaguhumpraghum...FFFFFZZZZ!" -OberRanks (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Of course telling another editor to piss off is rude and uncivil. Don't overthink it. Gerardw (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• + Malleus. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Not a personal attack. Isolated incidents should not be escalated through AN or dispute resolution, particularly when the rudeness was provoked by and in direct response to someone who is revert-warring and editing tendentiously (1, 2, 3, 4). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Material Scientist

This user is disrupting processes and causing contention. Hans Adler and Bushranger can attest to his demagogue-esque stance and the fact that the article Manatee Palms Youth Services has been prevented from being published on DYK because of lengthy discussions solely based on his problems with the article (please also see the WT:DYK). The user also capriciously accused me of sockpuppetry for unsubstantiated reasons which were completely based on speculation. The article, in a nutshell, is about a for-profit hospital that has suffered state sanctions as a result of misconduct and abuse on the part of staff. Materialscientist wanted the article to be balanced; to make everyone happy, the two aforementioned editors and I went to great lengths to give the article a neutral tone and foster encyclopedic content. Unfortunately, Material Scientist still has not concurred with the rest of us that the article is go for launch on DYK. Additionally, he has not conceded that the article meets Misplaced Pages standards, which several other editors have determined. This user is disrupting the algorithms Misplaced Pages utilizes to distinguish reputable hooks and encyclopedic content. I hereby request intervention and guidance. Tkfy7cf (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See this thread for more details. The mentioned DYK nom is being reviewed at T:TDYK and this thread appears to me as an attempt to "kill the character" (reviewer). Materialscientist (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist is quite clearly disrupting the algorithms. I recommend execution by upright jerker (no hood, please)... Doc9871 (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*...can't we just all get along? I hate conflict, Wikipedian or otherwise. But since I'm in this already...

Personally, and honestly, both sides here have issues, IMHO. 'Resolving' the WP:NPOV concerns voiced about the article would require inserting information that would run afoul of WP:V - if all the sources available only say negative things about the subject, positive information about the place can't be reliably added to the article. That said, frustration shouldn't lead somebody to violate WP:CIVIL, and calling somebody an 'idiot' is, IMHO, getting close to running afoul of WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the DYK process, Materialscientist has behaved correctly. In fact, if any user should be on this page, it's Tkfy7cf, who has behaved atrociously throughout this affair (and apparently others as well, see WP:EAR#Heading off conflict). cmadler (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, Cooperation & Civility with response from user in question

This was archived before it could be commented on by all involved & Minphie had their edit deleted because they pulled it out of the archives instead of starting a new process. So I've done it this way to give them a say. --Figs Might Ply

I've been editing a number of pages relating to drug policy recently, and have noticed a lot of conflict between a few of editors and, Minphie. Minphie and I have opposing views on how governments should respond to drug use, which is fine, however Minphie has been not been assuming good faith, not been civil and sometimes making edits that I believe are not in keeping with various wikipedia policy guidelines. I would like to request that someone reiterate to Minphie that consensus, cooperating and civility are important here on wikipedia. It's fine that we disagree on content, but we need to be in agreement about how to resolve this dispute as effective editors.

Examples of Minphie not adhering to wikiquette

• Threatening to "take it further"

On the Harm reduction talk page, Minphie has multiple times told other editors (Figs Might Ply, Steinberger, Rakkar) that they will be reported for vandalism or inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling us he is keeping a log of our "infringements" that he will use to report us. User:Rakkar was reported to administrator JohnCD in early april, and received thefollowing response: I have advised Minphie that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and that if you and s/he cannot reach a WP:Consensus by discussion on talk pages you should follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD

• Undue weight

Without reigniting the arguments here, I would like to contend that Minphie is trying to unbalance a number of drug policy related articles by adding large amounts of criticism. As per Misplaced Pages:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, Minphie's versions of the articles listed at the end of this report often contain more criticism than content. I agree that drug policies are a contentious issue, and different people in the community oppose various methods. So it's good and fine for the article to contain information on this, but not so much that most of the article is about this opposition. If I could give the following example, Minphie added so much criticism that the article was about 70% criticism. Steinberger has trimmed it down, and regardless of the exact content, I believe that the article looks a lot easier to read now.

• Unwillingness to compromise

Minphie believes that they have unquestionable truth on a number of points, and is unwilling to engage in debate about these issues. on the Talk:Harm reduction page, they have made the following comments:

• Here is the reason I won't tolerate any further deletions on the Sweden issue. - Goes on to claim to have unquestionable information
• I won't tolerate this clear obstructionism in the future - claiming that because wikipedia policies around WP:Weasel have not been applied to every example of weasel words, his use of weasel words should be exempt.

Articles where disputes take place

• Talk:Harm reduction
• Harm reduction
• Needle-exchange_programme
• Safe_injection_site

I have tagged Minphie's talk page as requested. I hope we can reach an understanding between all editors. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie’s reply

Minphie wanted to have their say on the matter after it was archived so I've dug it out of the archive and reposted it. --Figs Might Ply

I am re-posting the charges of Figs Might Ply on Wikiquette Alerts dated 09/05/2010 before replying below - Minphie

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I believe that any objective adjudicator of this issue would want to know the following before providing assistance:

Consensus/Compromise?

I’ll first address this singular charge of unwillingness to compromise. I believe this charge arises out of an entirely fallacious and mistaken notion of consensus which, quite realistically, would not be given life within any academic forum. User:Gerardw expresses this false notion well on User talk:Minphie section – “taking it further’ where he urged:

"Strange as it might seem being correct is not the criteria for content on Misplaced Pages. Rather verifiable, balanced presentation as determined by consensus determines Misplaced Pages content. If you have one position and two or three editors have the other, than you are in the wrong to keep adding/reverting content. You can utilize article WP:RFC (or WP:THIRD if it's just two of you) to get more eyes on the issue."

This erroneous notion of consensus dictates that if I assert that 2+2=4 on Misplaced Pages, but a number of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy members rather assert that 2+2=3, that consensus must be found by no longer seeking to be correct as User:Gerardw asserts, but by seeking compromise (perhaps 2+2 will equal 3.5 now on Misplaced Pages) or if by weight of numbers 2+2 will now equal 3 because they had the majority in the discussion. Of course, if the claim is made that Misplaced Pages cannot record anything without some level of agreement by those in the discussion, then 2+2 won’t ever be asserted on Misplaced Pages, no matter its importance to the world at large, while the stonewalling of the 2+2=3 cabal continues. The kind of irrational consensus promoted by user Gerardw would be given no credence whatsoever in any academic or cooperative forum, and Misplaced Pages would lose its credibility if it was. True rational consensus is about agreeing on what, amongst the correct information available, is relevant to the topic at hand. Thus being correct is still absolutely critical to Misplaced Pages’s credibility.

The ‘contentious’ issue that has brought this complaint from User:Figs Might Ply is whether: 1. Sweden has attained the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD (see Revision History of Harm Reduction from 29 April to present) 2. whether this is due to its restrictive drug policy introduced in 1982. (see Revision History of Harm Reduction for May 4,5)

Evidencing issue 1 is my citation from the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC) World Report 2000 showing that Sweden had the lowest cumulative drug use in the developed world, which is easily calculated from the percentages on the tables in the pages I cited. These figures cannot be disputed with any rational weight of argument, butUser:Steinberger has repeatedly used arguments that don’t even address the issue of achieving lowest use to remove my text from the Harm Reduction page. I have put it back because it is 1. correct 2. relevant to the argument 3. brief and 4. Steinberger is a proponent of heroin trials, not a critic, and should not decide how critics put there argument if it is relevant, brief and correct.

Evidencing issue 2 is an entire UNODC document on Sweden’s drug policy of 100 pages which shows correlations between the introduction of their restrictive drug policy and steep drops in drug use. Seeing as User:Steinberger has frequently contributed to a subsection on Drug policy of the Netherlands section - 'Results of the drug policy' which assumes a causal relationship between their drug policy and their drug use statistics, it is disingenuous of User:Steinberger to question the very highly probable causation of evidenced drug policy in Sweden. Steinberger and Figs Might Ply can be observed on the Discussion page taking their objections to these to issues to absurd lengths, simply, it would seem, so they claim that there is no consensus and keep factual and correct text off the page. I will now progress this dispute by taking this issue of erroneous consensus definitions and tactical stonewalling and obfuscation to the appropriate forums in Misplaced Pages such that the guidelines are strengthened such that this does not continue to happen on Misplaced Pages. Its continuation will only harm Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable information source. Also the use of block deletions to remove huge slabs of factual and carefully cited text for one small issue under discussion in the midst of the slab of text also needs to be questioned guideline-wise. Etiquette would demand that the rest of the factual and cited text remain while one sentence among the many is discussed. This was an issue with User:Rakkar, another member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy.

Incivility?

The current issue had its origins in a first deletion of a factual and meticulously cited paragraph on criticisms of injecting rooms on the Harm Reduction page dated 29 April 2010. The deletion was by user: Figs Might Ply, who notably is the one lodging the various grievances on this page. user:Figs Might Ply entered no discussion on the Talk page, but deleted highly relevant text for the following subjective reason as entered into the Edit Summary (→Safe injection sites: Deleted a bit. This paragraph seemed to have a pretty warped version of the truth. Can we replace it with something better?) I dispassionately wrote user:Figs Might Ply via their user page that there would need to be good and discussed reason for deleting my contribution. I will leave it with observers/adjudicators of this issue to determine the civility or good faith of this opening move by user:Figs Might Ply.

I believe that what any objective adjudicator must determine, then, is whether this complaint by user:Figs Might Ply, also on behalf of user:Steinberger, is a case of the aggressor crying foul when someone stands up to their inappropriate behaviours. Again the history of these behaviours can be tracked through the Talk:Harm reduction and Revision history of Harm reduction section 22.

Undue Weight

I am happy to support the criticism of undue weight, and have adjusted the Safe Injection Site accordingly.

Minphie

FMP Resurrects Matter

Minphie, I really do want to try and sort this out properly, and I hope you will appreciate that I have gone to the effort of resubmitting this matter as it had been archived and your response was subsequently not seen.

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Could you explain what this line meant? I'm most confused as B626mrk has never been involved in editing drug related articles to my knowledge. I'll invite Steinberger to come and talk this over too.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie, read and understand WP:OR. Not only the factual statistics in an argumentation should be verified, the whole argument should also be verified. You just can't take a figure from a source, such as you for example done from kingheathpartners.org

I'd also like to refer Minphie to our verifiability policy. The piece above about whether 2+2=4 makes it seem that Minphie has missed the point entirely. Misplaced Pages should say 2+2=4, not because a minority of editors know they are right and hold out fanatically against all opposition, but because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If problems persist, the next steps in dispute resolution would be user conduct RfC as it will focus on discussing conduct issues of this sort. But it might be easier to clarify how his conduct is affecting content by first using article RfC, formal mediation or informal mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

User: Eugeneacurry has accused me of telling "lies" and also written "shame on Stonemason89" , accusing me of leaving out "context" in what I had written about Theodore Beale, with whom Eugeneacurry seems to agree (he has also edited the article to make it more pro-Beale). Since Beale's views are very fringy regardless of "context" (including Beale's claim, well-documented but repeatedly targeted for scrubbing by User: Xday and User: Eugeneacurry, that Homo sapiens is divided into multiple subspecies, as well as the statements about "kicking the Mexicans out of the American Southwest"), I'm not quite sure what to do but I think someone needs to step in. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that I should say something in my defense. Stonemason89 posted this:

In case anyone here is curious as to whether Vox Day is a racist or not, I think the following make it quite obvious: Stonemason89 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Or how about this doozy, from in which Beale writes:

the only logical solution is to end racism once and for all by forcibly aborting every Black, Mexican and Asian pregnancy.

Or his blogroll ; take a close look and you'll see that it contains a link to a blog (apparently now defunct, as the link is dead) called "BNP and Me". Hmm, British National Party reference, anyone?

Still think Vox Day isn't a white nationalist? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To this I replied:

Tisk, tisk; lies make baby Jesus cry.

"Amynda is a disgusting, morally perverted human being. ... Just to explore the insanity of her position, I note that if abortion is a moral good, and racism is evil, (both positions publicly espoused by this walking, talking cancer on cankles), then the only logical solution is to end racism once and for all by forcibly aborting every Black, Mexican and Asian pregnancy. While it's hard not to think of the justice that would be served in jamming a sharpened Dyson extension into Amynda's eye and sucking out what passes for her brain, I'm forced to remind myself that unlike her, I don't believe in human and sub-human classes of homo sapiens; even evil feminist cretins possess God-given free will and freedom of speech. And by Amynda's twisted 'morality', such a post-natal abortion would even be a morally positive act, since she also declares that 'pleasure is a moral good'."

Just look at what a little context can do. Makes me wonder what a little context could do for the rest of the quotations in the article. I also note that Beale has written of the BNP thusly: "The BNP are sound on the EU, but that's about it." So, again, shame on you Stonemason89. Eugene (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Beale was mocking the pro-abortion views of Amanda Marcotte, views Beale finds abominable, yet Stonemason89 dishonestly attempted to present that parody as if it represented Beale's own position. So again I say, tisk tisk. Eugene (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Context or no context, Beale's views are very fringy. The comments about "justice" resulting from a "sharpened Dyson extension into Amynda's eye" could very well be construed as incitement to violence, and certainly do represent an extreme POV. Not to mention the crude name calling ("evil feminist cretins"?) And again, why are you and User: Xday trying to remove all mention of Beale's belief that Homo sapiens is divided into multiple "subspecies"? Stonemason89 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never contested the fringiness, extremity, or crudity of Beale's views. In fact, I don't think that I've voiced an opinion one way or another. I merely object to your patent lying through the use of carefully truncated and decontextualized quotations in gross violation of WP:BLP. I also note that I've not removed any material about "sub-species"; apparently you're interested in misrepresenting both Beale and me. Classy. Eugene (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• The moral of this tale seems to be that no matter whether you're right or wrong, once you acuse another editor of lying you do your own cause a disservice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So you think that Stonemason's allegations should not be exposed? I don't know SM - perhaps he made a simple mistake (I'm assuming good faith), but to get one's panties in a bunch (so to speak) is not the way to go. He should have admitted the error and moved on. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine then, I was just expressing my opinion; I see now that a lot of people disagree with me, so I'm going to move on, as Bill the Cat said. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SM, we've ALL made mistakes. There is no shame in that. On the contrary, when we are willing to admit our mistakes, as I've had to do in the past, it just means we are good, honest people. Oh, and did I mention that I was also humble?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I also apologize for accusing Eugene of removing information about the "subspecies" claims; I should have checked more closely, as it had been done multiple times by Xday, but never by Eugene. Sorry. I guess I just found Beale's remarks on this topic to be so repugnant (to me personally) that I overreacted. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) is being uncivil. The latest example of his incivility is in this edit and its Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks is the British English equivalent of bullshit... while not a personal attack it was an inappropriate reply to Jeff's comment about having the courtesy of being civil; using colorful language to describe an opinion on content is not considered uncivil unless it was directed at someone to make a point. Please avoid each other to avoid any further disruptions. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Fur.Perf. don't bait to antagonize an editor on a noticeboard such as this one. Please reconsider your comments. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And so are you, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). Both "shite" and "bollocks" are vulgar per English Wiktionary.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people find vulgarity offensive; others see it as being merely "common" - or even humourous. His point was that you're seeing incivility where it is not... SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Silesian metropolitan region and personal attacks in polish language

I proposed removing Silesian metropolitan region because of WP:SOURCES, WP:REDFLAG and original research. User:LUCPOL not only removed prod template from aritcle without giving proper argumentation on talkpage but also started to write aggresively in polish as described here. I'm looking for help and/or advice over what can be done in this situation.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removal aggresive part of my post and apologized (before he announced here ). When it comes to template {delete}, this IP incorrect use of the template - first template, then the discussion with other users. Should be: first discussion with other users then template (if there was consensus). PS. This IP harassing me for a long time - therefore, I be angry, I'm only human. LUCPOL (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, it's your imagination. I only put objections to unreliable content, original research and your own opinions which you just happen to include in articles quite often and it looks like you get easily annoyed if someone shows it to you. Please don't try to act like you didn't do that.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing against the showing of irregularities, but you remove what you like (in particular the text, which you would prefer to hide), no waiting for the reviews of other users. You are not alone on Misplaced Pages. You behaving in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Trolling. LUCPOL (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling, you say? Where?--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your whole behavior: conversation mode, erased data, insertion templates (in particular to the text, which you would prefer to hide), writing nonsense in the discussions, governance to Misplaced Pages as king, do not listen to the opinions of others users, no waiting for the reviews of other users ...and harassment. LUCPOL (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing like this you're only working for a ban. Please, show me where I treated you like that. I don't understand what you mean writing things like these above. It's only bad for you accusing me of things I haven't done. By now the only nonsense I can see is what you've just written.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation: "It's only bad for you accusing me of things I haven't done" - enough to trace your contribution and the relationship between us. You do not see what you are doing wrong. Bad. LUCPOL (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, nice chat, but seriously, what exactly you think I've done wrong to you? Cause this overall accusation works well only for your eventual ban. There's no "relationship between us", you're dreaming XD--83.242.88.168 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What is clear is that you are both edit-warring where blocking both of you would be appropriate. To resolve your content dispute(s), instead of edit-warring, please use dispute resolution - namely, article RfC, or request formal mediation or informal mediation. To LUCPOL, it is clear you need to discuss your reverts on the talk page if you wish to avoid revert restrictions. And to the IP, it is clear that you keep editing articles that LUCPOL is editing so you are probably correct in suggesting a ban is imminent - though not necessarily for LUCPOL. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Vranak - views on consensus and personal attacks

Vranak (talk · contribs) removed article tags at Everquest, some I support, 1 oppose, but with a series of less-than-ideal edit summaries. One, here, has more than a whiff of wp:NPA-break. Editor strongly opposes use of article tags, and this post, to me, goes past "That was rude, and not ideal." and into "Stop the personal attacks. Now."

Since we don't agree about the wp:article tags, and the importance of wp:consensus, I think any further comment from me will only be inflammatory. The editor clearly understands wp:NPA and wp:consensus... but perhaps a few words from uninvolved editors might help the editor understand the WP community dependence on both. - Sinneed 16:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Meltdown

Melting.

editor redacted most of that.- Sinneed 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Me: "I see your vision for Misplaced Pages, but it conflicts with the vision outlined in wp:five pillars.- Sinneed 4:38 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

Reply: "Alright. I have no interest in these Five Pillars. I have an interest in Misplaced Pages being as good as possible. Where there is conflict, the Five Pillars must accede. Vranak (talk) 4:49 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

I don't think this is going to work out well for V.- Sinneed 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Sorry, but I have to complain about this user. It all begin on my talk page, where he directed towards me with this profanities:

• (he said to me in Serbian "Idi jedi govna", meaning "Go eat sh*t"), or here ("Jebo lud zbunjenog" means something like "F*ck the crazy the one with doubts" ).
• It continued on the Talk:Red Star Belgrade page, where in the discussion, we have answers to me of the kind WTF , then he disrupted the Talk:Real Madrid C.F. page by requesting a page move just to make a point on a completely different article, see here .
• Then we go to here where he "sends me to my totally irrelevant stuff, and tells me to go sleep"
• Then here , after I asked him to stop being rude, he said that he´ll continue being rude to "pests" like me, and called me "dummy".
• We have the "bullsh*t" word on this comment to me today, .
• And after I asked him (again) for him to change his attitude, I got the answer: "Fu*k off"... Here: .
• You can see all this in the Red Star talk page, but I noteced that pretty much most of his discussions, with most of users, go this way. You can also see, on the RS talk page, him calling other users stupid, hypocrit...

I was assuming good faith, but this is just not a way to discuss. Can sameone please intervene and make him stop saying all this profanities and make him start respecting other wikipedians. Thank you. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User FKP is a dirty liar. He often speaks in serbian, to get me to speak back in it. Naturally some of these accusations like go eat shit are completely false. That was explained here,

The whole reality here is that this user is angry at me. He wanted me to help in the Draza Mihajlovic problem that is undergoing some review. I however did not share his opinions and thus he got pissed off at me. Since then he has had a vendeta against me. He has gone about needlessly provoking me.

What is going on in the Crvena Zvezda article is that this user is desparately trying to think up excuses for why this page should not be moved. He has even gone as far as to say that people can not pronounce Zvezda... what kind of dummies does he take english speakers to be?

He did not ask me to stop being rude. He simply continued to provocate me. Naturally I would tell him fuck off. What else can I do when all else has failed and he continues to needlessly harass me?

FKP views that "I put a knife in his back" regarding the Draza Mihajlovic issue. He wrote so on my talk page on may 13th saying "Ti mene em nisi pomogao, em si meni zabio noz u ledja". He further follows up by attacking me based on my views with "Ja sam mislio da se slazes oko toga, a ti ne, ti si odabrao da se pajtas sa drustvom sto zeli da nazifikuje coveka koji se borio kako je znao i mogao. " - he is condmening that I do not support Draza Mihajlovic, a known criminal who buthered thousands of innocent civilians based on ethnic/religious identification alone. He has taunted me on my page. He says "Mnogo komplikujes, nista nisi shvatio," - I am complicating things too much, I did not understand anything". Who did not understand anything? He is the one that did not understand that he is defending a Nazi collaborator. Regarding this same issue about Draza, he tells me "Zaboravi, sve je tamo pod kontrolom, a tebi da ne pada na pamet da kad ti se negde suprostavim" - Forget it, everything is under control, and don't you dare think about getting involved". He further has a perverted view about wikipedia - "Narocito kad diskutujes sa nekim, moras da mu pogledas stranu, da znas sto vise o njemu." - when you speak to someone on wiki youhave to look at their page to know more about them - tell FKP that one does not need to look at any page.

FKP will continue doing what he is doing- sticking a thorn or two into me whenever he gets the chance. He needs to be restrained. (LAz17 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

Please use google translate and see by yourselfs. Also, just to make some issues clear: it was me that insisted in using English. I never wanted, neither ever, ever, want his help. I even said to him that we should avoid eachother. Please, I don´t want to have nothing to do with people that behaves this way. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the citations in Serbian he made, well, I think you´ll need to know that I advised him to look at the user pages of people he disagrees with (as in Red Star Belgrade talk page) before he starts being disrespectfull to them, regarding Mihailovic, there is a mediation going on on this, and the reality is just that he wants to participate in a mediation that he doesn´t even know what is about. Neverless, I was really being very reasonable with him, he even asked me to help him on Kneževo article, and I did, and now he is angry with me because I don´t support him on some moves he wants to made on Red Star Belgrade and FK Partizan articles, and he has been extremely unpolite and agressive towards anybody (the majority) that is disagreing with him, as you can see in the bottom sections of the Talk:Red Star Belgrade. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to weigh in on the subject.

LAz17 has been told to watch his language since the "gooks" incident and this comment "User FKP is a dirty liar." shouldn't be tolerated; however his point that these are phrases used in "Serbian" is valid.

Fkp you deliberately targeted LAz17, simply because he's a Serb, for the Mihailovic discussion and when he refused you made it appear that he betrayed another Serb for not helping. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless for me to talk to him or about him. I'll leave it at this - his facts are wrong... like for example, Knezevo was something that he notified me about, and I never asked him about any help. He asked me, he came to me. Regardless, it should not matter who came to whom - what we see is a user who is trying to divert attention from one thing, to only increase the scope of this thing here. I see no constructive purpose of this. It's an endless circle that he wants to keep me in. Why mention knezevo, when it is totally unrelated to anything here - and worse, why show things in wrong light about it? (LAz17 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

Alleged ongoing harassment by User:Nishidani

User:Nishidani, who has been reported here several times over the last few years,], ], ], is falling back on old habits. He and I have had an ongoing content dispute since February of this year, and as a result, I have been under near constant attack.

To document that this has been a long-standing and ongoing problem, please see:

• ] – “vulgar”
• ] – “you lie”

• ] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"
• ] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”

• ] – “sheer momentum of the obtuse"

• ] - accused of “faking” evidence

• – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

• ] Defends his behavior with "Consistent factitious editing raises hackles, that is all. "

• ] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."

• ] "Oxfordian harping all about repetition.” “is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters"

This behaviour has continued despite repeated requests to stop the personal attacks and focus on editing. Earlier this week, I sought advice on a policy question ] concerning a different editor, after which Nishidani appeared and left this ], which he then amended with this over-the-top insult:

• ] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

This has been going on, non-stop, for almost 5 months now. Can someone intervene?Smatprt (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone attentively reads those diffs, perhaps someone familiar with the huge amount of work Smatprt's highly erratic edits create for editors trying to rein in the proliferation of poor paraphrases and outright mistakes that characterize his 'work' here. It's taken me two hours today to correct the total mess made, including sheer fabrication, of several paraphrases of the work of Diana Price, and I can't even post it on the page he works, but in the other version sensible editors are trying to construct, where it is all provisory. As Tom Reedy said, people shouldn't be constrained to work like this, cleaning the Augean stables of an ideologically-motivated fringe theory pusher, who is now forum-shopping (see WP:Edit warring, yesterday ). Yes It's frustrating, particularly since the few diffs I checked don't even have anything to do with him (the one he calls 'vulgar' is a joke, not referring to him, but made for the eyes of a fellow editor who seems to have, unlike Smatprt, a sense of humour, something needed to cope with this war of attrition on behalf of the earl of Oxford aka Shakespeare by another name. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nishidani is correct - some of the attacks above were indeed directed at other editors, as well (combined with continued ad hominem attacks). Not sure why that would be an excuse, as it merely shows his contempt for any editor that disagrees with him. Also not sure what he means by Forum shopping, as the edit-warring policy question I raised was not even concerning him. Smatprt (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating what I have repeated over the last few months. You continually misconstrue what I and others say, and books state. I made neither an 'attack' nor a a 'vulgar crack' at Tom Reedy. I made a joke that I hoped would tickle his humour, playing on the ambiguity of his edit. That is not, as you repeat here once more, an 'attack' on an editor. To the contrary, it was an attempt to inject a little light humour into things.

As to ad hominem attacks. I take it as an attack on my time and intelligence that it took me several days to get through to you that you did not understand the difference between 'myth' and 'legend', that you engaged in WP:OR violations in trying to twist words to make out that in antiquity what in modern times (after 1785) is called a 'mute swan' was responsible for the 'myth' you concocted out of Ovid. All the bored have to do is to keep clicking back on that diff. You refused to understand plain English, and caused me, in deference to WP:AGF to try to explain the concept of myth, the use of swan imagery in antiquity, the distinction between a whooper swan and a mute swan, the difference between Pliny, Aelian and Aristotle, the fact that the text you cite mistranslates the Latin olim. You kept succinctly rephrasing your edit, without altering its substance, in the face of my piling on of evidence you were, on several points, incorrect. I think, in the end, you just elided the whole grabbag of nonsense. But is is not a severe abuse of wiki etiquette, to keep up an edit in the face of grinding proofs you got it all wrong? It is, in my book, because you persist in the face of proof, do nothing to improve your understanding of the subject you raise, and you do this all over articles on Shakespeare, citing poor scholarship, which you frequently misunderstand, to push an ideological absurdity no one in the serious world of Elizabethan studies takes seriously. If, after dozens of edits to nudge you to try and understand what your interlocutor, and the broad world of scholarship, is saying fails, you think I am in breach of a rule of etiquette, well, perhaps, but only under extreme provocation. I am not used to obtusity, presume you are not dumb, and yet you persist in not understanding simple issues. Hence I wondered if your first language was English, after months of engaging with you. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides being incorrect on numerous counts (and off topic), are you saying that this excuses your constant attacks, insults, and vulgarity?Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ps.In your history of my appearance here, you appear not to be familiar with the history on wikipedia of the two people who, very briefly, complained here about me, to no effect. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if you are trying to imply that you have no history of attacks and incivility, then please refer to these comments and decisions at ArbCom: ] Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And your vulgarity is well known, as well: See edit summaries here] and here ].Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt is probably the most exasperating editor at Misplaced Pages, as almost everyone who has ever tried to work with him can testify, but oddly enough no one has complained of his etiquette because most adult editors know that it's a waste of time and a distraction. He's addicted to complaining about his editors, their edits, and how everybody's picking on him. It's one way he wastes everybody's time in order to divert their attention away from his ongoing campaign to insert his pet POV into as many articles as possible before someone spots and reverts them. Complaining about impolite behaviour is probably one of the most-used weapons in the anti-Stratfordian arsenal; I don't know any of them who have not used it at one time or another, and in fact for them it rises to the level of genuine scholarly discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has complained due to the fact that I don't engage in personal attacks and the kind of mudslinging that you and Nishidani are known for. We have content disputes. Big deal. There are lots of them here (and plenty that pale in comparison to ours). It's still no excuse for you] and Nishidani's behaviour. Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of "personal attacks" and "mudslinging" is anything you deem to be such. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Smatprt, please MYOB - what Nishidani says to Tom Reedy is not your concern. If Tom Reedy has a concern, he can raise it himself. Although some of the commentary is concerning, you appear to be exaggerating in calling it harassment.

• Nishidani and Tom Reedy, I appreciate that you might be dealing with a form of editing that frustrates the best of editors, but you need to stop drawing this sort of attention to yourselves. If an editor is repeatedly trying to push POV, edit tendentiously, etc., it is under one condition that you may try to deal with this by yourselves: that your conduct stays well above par. For most editors, this is close to impossible, and that is why Wikipedians are expected to utilize dispute resolution in order to deal with the problem. Most people either don't quite understand how it works or just don't have the patience because it "doesn't rise to the level of genuine scholarly discussion", but that excuse does not help your cause, even if this does one day end up in front of an ArbCom. If an editor is trying to push POV, open an article RfC - let others see why or how another editor's proposal/editing is problematic. If they can see what you see, and the editing is continuing, then open a user conduct RfC citing the most pertinent examples of the editing. Others will comment on the conduct to the point that the editor hopefully addresses his/her approach. If he/she doesn't, then you bring the matter to ANI where we can remove that editing from that part of the project, or if all else fails, there is the nuclear option of ArbCom. To cut the long story short, if you aren't ready to keep your conduct well above par and you aren't ready to utilize dispute resolution, you will soon find that this project might not be the place for you. You need to make a choice about how others will receive your contributions - this includes in the level of professionalism that others can see in your commentary and edit-summaries. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack or Conflict of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution