Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive86
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
ResolvedTwo edits, one to his user page linking to German Wikipedia, the other one on my talk page calling me an asshole (in German). I blocked the account permanently on German Wikipedia and would like to request the same here. sebmol (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Being a German speaker, I can confirm that is indeed what it says. Pretty blatant personal attack. Might want to transfer this to WP:ANI. -OberRanks (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedUser:Gun Powder Ma has repeatedly attacked me as a "wargamer" and "having comprehension problems" as shown here. [1], [2], and [3], 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have warned him in the past but he has not responded or relented. See here [4] and [5].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 (Wikipedia 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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 Wikipedia: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)
- I did not attack you as a wargamer. Rather, I described you as one in a very specified context, that is your article Wikipedia: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)
- These aren't the worst remarks I've seen, but calling someone a wargamer is certainly counterproductive (Wikipedia 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have warned him in the past but he has not responded or relented. See here [4] and [5].Teeninvestor (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Accusation of "Nazi apologia"
StaleI 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"[6]. 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".[7] 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 Speak 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" [8], even though the talk page clearly said exactly the opposite. -OberRanks (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedI 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 NO! I'm Spartacus! 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 NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- See User talk:Donald Duck#Wikipedia: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 NO! I'm Spartacus! 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)
Murder of Meredith Kercher needs some civility coaches
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThis 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 Wikipedia: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)
StaleThis 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 Wikipedia standards, which several other editors have determined. This user is disrupting the algorithms Wikipedia 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 fireFlank speed 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)
- Materialscientist is quite clearly disrupting the algorithms. I recommend execution by upright jerker (no hood, please)... Doc9871 (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
ResolvedUser: Eugeneacurry has accused me of telling "lies" [9] and also written "shame on Stonemason89" [10], 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: [2] [3] Stonemason89 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Or how about this doozy, from [4] 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 [5]; 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."[6] 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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
ResolvedJack 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)
- 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... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:09, 17 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)
Consensus, Cooperation & Civility with response from user in question
Stuck- 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 Wikipedia: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
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 Wikipedia. Rather verifiable, balanced presentation as determined by consensus determines Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, but a number of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia cannot record anything without some level of agreement by those in the discussion, then 2+2 won’t ever be asserted on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia such that the guidelines are strengthened such that this does not continue to happen on Wikipedia. Its continuation will only harm Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia: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.
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 [here and use it to make an argument of lacking cost-effectiveness when, in the source you cite, they make the contrary argument with the same and the alternative cost figures (that you omit). That is not just misappropriate, its and violation of Wikipedia policies. NPOV also say that matters of opinion should be attributed to the one who makes them. This is also something you constantly miss, as you take facts and use them with your own opinions in writing. Steinberger (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Wikipedia 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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)
- 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. Wikipedia 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Alleged ongoing harassment by User:Nishidani
ResolvedUser:Nishidani, who has been reported here several times over the last few years,[[11]], [[12]], [[13]], 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:
- [[16]] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"
- [[17]] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
- [[18]] – “sheer momentum of the obtuse"
- [[19]] - accused of “faking” evidence
- [[20] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."
- [[21]] Defends his behavior with "Consistent factitious editing raises hackles, that is all. "
- [[22]] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."
- [[23]] "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 [[24]] concerning a different editor, after which Nishidani appeared and left this [[25]], which he then amended with this over-the-top insult:
- [[26]] "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)
- 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)
- 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)
Smatprt is probably the most exasperating editor at Wikipedia, 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[[30]] 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)
- Well, I'm just an editor, and scrupulous, and lack the patience of Job. I stick to the charge, that his editing is frequently 'fraudulent' (se below for this morning's example), and tests the patience of anyone who troubles to check it, as, once more, occurred today. Sure I deserve a rap over the knuckles for failing the sainthood test. Still, while on the intercom to Arbcom about that nuke strike my way, I hope you do glance at this. It may distract you just enough to make you stuff up on the coordinates, and hit Frisco instead! No hardf feelings, whatever the outcome. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are well-taken, and you have my word I will do my best to comply with your suggestions, although I try to avoid arbitration myself as a waste of time that could be better spent editing. One foreseeable problem that concerns me is that he has opened so many complaints connected to this topic that hardly any editors will venture their opinions anymore, which decreases the likelihood of response when some real issues need arbitration, such as when our separate SAQ articles are juried, but I suppose we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hope you won't be the only user who tries their best to do so...uninvolved users can only do so much. In any case, mrking it as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Silesian metropolitan region and personal attacks in polish language
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereI 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 [31] (before he announced here [32]). When it comes to template {delete}, this IP incorrect use of the template [33] - 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 Wikipedia. You behaving in accordance with Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia 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)
- Trolling, you say? Where?--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:17, 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 Wikipedia. You behaving in accordance with Wikipedia:Trolling. LUCPOL (talk) 18:13, 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)
- 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)
- OK, I've done edits on pages that LUCPOL edited too, but does that mean I shouldn't edit articles when I see clearly someone is forcing his own opinions and violates WP:NOR policy? Is that how care for reliability works on wikipedia? I think wikipedia community must consider what is more iportant for wikipedia. Just tell me, do you want it to work like this: anyone can register and than be protected when writing on own fantasies? That's all I mean.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- You can make a bold edit, but these may be subject to a reversion if they are opposed - this is almost predictable whenever largescale changes are made by the way. When the edit is reverted, the matter needs to be raised on the talk page by one or both of you where the proposal will be considered, and you both discuss the matter. If you don't think there's enough input because only you are responding or only another editor is responding, then you can open an article RfC so that others can comment. If it's just a matter of communicating difficulties, mediation will help address the points you both agree on and the points that you need to work on before consensus can arise. However, if you are following an editor around, targetting their contributions for the purpose of intimidating or annoying them, that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's five pillars and that is when things happen. Similarly, if an editor is engaging in original research consistently, then they may also encounter problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Vranak - views on consensus and personal attacks
ResolvedThe 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.
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
- editor redacted most of that.- Sinneed 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me: "I see your vision for Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)
- See also this discussion on the Reference Desk talk page that cites a number of rude comments by Vranak against the general public, including the implication that cancer is linked to moral defects. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
wp:PA here, wp:taunting (sorry can't find the real article) here - continuing. I hope this editor can be helped, but the editor seems to only be hearing from involved editors. Words from uninvolved editors may help the editor understand that this behaviour is disruptive and must end. - Sinneed 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Resolved| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sorry, but I have to complain about this user. It all begin on my talk page, where he directed towards me with this profanities:
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)
You said profanities in English (I didn´t), you said profanities in Serbian, or Serbo-Croatian, too (I didn´t), in Serbian language, this expressions are commun only for some tipes of people (as in any other language). FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I asked you if you have any complains about the translation. You are the one cutting sentencies to fit your counter-acusation: exemple from your edit up here: you said I wrote, "Zaboravi, sve je tamo pod kontrolom, a tebi da ne pada na pamet da kad ti se negde suprostavim" here you intentionally cut the sentence so it looks like something that it isn´t. The entire sentence is: " Zaboravi, sve je tamo pod kontrolom, a tebi da ne pada na pamet da kad ti se negde suprostavim, lupetas stvari kao sto si na Red Star strani, kako ti se ja svetim, ili da ja nemam pojma." meaning: Just forget it, everything there is under control, and you don´t even dare, when I don´t agree with you on something, to say wrong things as you did in Red Star page, that I´m revengfull on you, or that I have no clue." . I think everybody can see that you cut the sentence in the "when" part, where I was going to explain a part that obviously is not fancy to you, because I´m remindind you of your extremely rude comment that you directed (once more) to me on Red Star talk page: here [48]. You were saying in that comment that my vote there has to do with you (???) and that I didn´t had anythoing to do with that article, about a Serbian football club! That is why I also told you to look at wikipedians pages before you mengage in discussions, because you could have obviously seen that I am a footy editor, so by only this exemple, I demonstrate how you manipulated 2 or 3 citations in this ridicoulos counter attack of yours. You are the one that considered that I have to agree with you on everything, and you´re just continuously revengfull against people that disagrees with you. I may have been arogant with you on some ocasions, but I never attacked you, much less used profanities, I was rather cool with you, and fogived you several times, also warned you, so it would be really wise if you stoped your manipulation and lies, and apologised to me. FkpCascais (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
|
User:G8crash3r and personal attacks
Stale- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Can a third party please remind User:G8crash3r that personal attacks such as calling fellow ediotrs "racist" (because my clean up efforts have only been on Philipine articles)[49] and "unintelligent " [50] are completely unacceptable and need to stop. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- On 22 May Active Banana raised issues against G8crash3r at WP:ANI where it is now archived - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615 and scroll down to Items 66 and 66.1 (heading SkyCable article and User talk:G8crash3r and User:Puppyph.) Dolphin (t) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Lar and inappropriate edit summaries
The edit summary at [51] appears to call me a "flapper." I don't feel that being called names in unretractable edit summaries and would appreciate a user who is uninvolved requesting that Lar refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you saying I was referring to you? Or that the term "flapper" is an insult? It was quite an honorable role in Laputia. I assure you it was meant as a compliment to those stalwart souls who stand ready to spring to WMC's aid, he being a terrifically important and busy fellow who doesn't always have time to mount a multiprong defense (or even answer simple yes/no questions). ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- The above comment is an example of a consistent behavior problem: Lar often complains about "snarkiness" and sarcasm by others, but feels at liberty to engage in similar behavior himself (e.g., "you lack introspective ability", characterizing good-faith edits as "smokescreens" and veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, etc). Then when called on it, he complains that it's someone else's fault.[52][53] Saying "and I mean that in the nicest possible way" or the equivalent doesn't excuse the behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely right, but he's by no means unique in that. I don't see any particular reason to single out Lar. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Lar is the only person who has called me a name today that I'm aware of. It would be helpful if someone who isn't involved in the underlying dispute could take a look-see.Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- At the very worst, he called you a "flapper". So what's the big deal? If that's the worst you get called today you'll have done well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Malleus is of course correct; the behavior is by no means unique. The relevance here is that Lar is basing his evaluations as an admin on a behavioral standard from which he exempts himself. If Lar were willing to model the behavior he expects from others there would be no complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Lar is the only person who has called me a name today that I'm aware of. It would be helpful if someone who isn't involved in the underlying dispute could take a look-see.Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely right, but he's by no means unique in that. I don't see any particular reason to single out Lar. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- The above comment is an example of a consistent behavior problem: Lar often complains about "snarkiness" and sarcasm by others, but feels at liberty to engage in similar behavior himself (e.g., "you lack introspective ability", characterizing good-faith edits as "smokescreens" and veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, etc). Then when called on it, he complains that it's someone else's fault.[52][53] Saying "and I mean that in the nicest possible way" or the equivalent doesn't excuse the behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- SBHB: Even if we posit that my comment was snarky rather than an apt description of events, I do not think you have standing to complain about snarkiness in others: [54] (and there are many more such if one wants to dig a little). If you are suggesting that my behavior must be perfect before criticizing others, you need to put your own house in order first. Your behavior is sadly lacking. "But he does it too" isn't normally an excuse... Except when one implies one is lily white when one actually isn't, and then casts stones. I make no such implication. We are all of us imperfect. But not all of us realize it. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- The use of snarkiness in the heat of the moment, whilst not the most helpful approach that could be adopted, is of itself not actionable. AGK 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, the diffs cited in this thread are unimpressive. Whilst, as above, I don't see anything that is immediately actionable, many of your comments fall short of the standard we expect of our contributors—and especially of our administrators. If CC enforcement is getting the better of you, please take a break; in the long run that would be better for everybody. AGK 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It does seem that Lar has ongoing civility issues that he should address, lest sanctions be taken. Verbal chat
- Bzzzt. I saw some other reference to Swift a while ago. This is all rather silly. There are flappers in Castle in the Sky, too, which is derivative. I don't think this has anything to do with flappers and don't see how that would be an insult anyway. Jack Merridew 18:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- As a totally uninvolved editor here let me simply point out the following:
- Being referred to as a "flapper" is not incivil. For example, compare that reference to the use of "bollocks" and "shite" described above in the section on Jack Merridew. Both of these terms are arguably vulgarities and yet they have been judged as not being incivil, hence the use of "flapper" should not be considered worse.
- Hipocrite's description is misleading in that he uses "flapper" in the singular whereas the edit summary in question uses "flappers" in the plural. I don't know if that misrepresentation was intentional, or not. What is clear is that Lar was referring to a group and not Hipocrite specifically. Whether he considers Hipocrite a member of that group is, strictly speaking, unclear from the text of the edit summary and WP:AGF would demand that we give Lar the benefit of the doubt.
- --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Anon IP user
StaleAn anonymous user (68.49.150.115, active since 26 April 2010) has been making repeated personal attacks against multiple editors, including myself:
The user has also blatantly accused other editors of harbouring motives and/or bias:
Both myself and User:Tomeasy have asked said user to conform to proper conduct:
The second diff listed (marked *) is also a fair example of harrassment, with the IP commenting on an old (resolved) mediation case with which I was involved (simultaneously managing to attack both myself and the mediator). The user had earlier been warned against edit-warring by an administrator, and was evidently upset after I had requested page protection (albeit regarding a different dispute with which I was uninvolved). I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could intervene. Night w (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply from IP User 68.49.150.115
Actio non datur non damnificato - An action is not given to one who is not injured. I have not attacked you personally, but rather raised, with evidence, a valid concern of the existence of a conflict of interest. And while you (night w) may disagree with my conclusion that both you and the other editor you mention (with whom I have already worked out an agreement, I believe) have conflicts of interest, the assertion on my part that there is a COI - for which I supplied evidence - does not constitute a personal attack and is in fact proper under the rules of Wikipedia.
It is common, accepted, and expected in environments such as Wikipedia, where the highest standards of ethics are implied, and required, for the project to work, that anyone with a conflict of interest should step aside from arbitrating the agreement and allow neutral parties to decide. Any academic, journalist, or jurist with a conflict of interest is expected to step aside if there is a conflict of interest and Wikipedia editors are no different – this is, after all, an academic environment, as all encyclopedia’s are, and as editor you are acting as a final arbiter of sorts. The general rule is that such people should not only avoid impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. As such, it is only fair that where there is evidence of possible bias that it be raised – which I did and supplied evidence of (e.g. comments made by you and the other editor on you and their talk pages, and other editors with clear biases that you associate with). And if a bias either exists, or the reasonable appearance of it exists, then there is a conflict of interest. Bringing up a possible conflict of interest (on my part) was not an attack upon your character, or your person, or even your editing abilities. You may very well be able to set aside any prejudices/biases that you have and neutrally edit/comment on an article. That is not the point - the point of someone stepping aside when they have a conflict of interest, again, is not just to avoid impropriety - which no one has accused you of - but rather the appearance of impropriety. Furthermore, my assertion that there is a COI does not mean there in fact is one, it simply means that I, based on a reasonable reading of the facts, believe there to be one. A neutral arbiter can decide – although given the consensus on the issue that I think there now exists, this may be unnecessary. Again though, I do not see how raising an issue of COI, in an academic forum such as Wikipedia, and supplying evidence for as much, constitutes a violation of Wikipedia rules. On the contrary, I believe it is in keeping with the best spirit of this most ambitious of academic and human ventures.
Additionally, me thinks you are in pari delicto here – you do not speak with unclean hands. Your comments that I speak from bias (without evidence), that my arguments are “silly,” and other such aspersions are equally offensive if not more offensive than anything I’ve said. All in all I think this whole argument has escalated to a bit of a silly level. I have no desire to attack you or any other editor, my only desire is to see accurate well written Wikipedia articles crafted by neutral informed parties. There seems to be a consensus on the Wiki page in question, so further discussion may not be necessary on that topic, and on the topic of you and me personally – you can choose to pursue it further, or escalate it, but as for me I consider the topic dead, and will engage in it no further. Regards 68.49.150.115 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Ouch! Talk about "wiki-lawyering"! My head hurts very bad now... Doc9871 (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- @IP, could you not just admit that some of your comments (I mean they are even cited!) were indeed personal attacks in a way we should not do it. Could you not just say that you will be trying hard to abstain from such behavior. And, if you said those words, would they not be indeed authentic and sincere - so we could move forward dealing with the issue itself ...
- Just for the recorded, I did not not use the word silly or anything alike, nevertheless, you attacked me with the line "As for you Tomeasy, I'll repeat any argument I like as many times as I like if I feel it necessary to break through your clearly thick and obtuse skull." Do you talk like this in real life? It is just as inappropriate here. Tomeasy T C 08:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to know what "evidence" you've relied upon to come to the conclusion that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. I certainly haven't had any brought to my attention, so naturally I've taken such an accusation as an unwarranted attack. As for the other user involved, declaring an interest or affiliation that is visible to everybody is an honest way of informing other editors of one's opinions or beliefs, things that every person possesses. It allows other editors to assess the user's edits and arguments with these declarations in mind. It does not mean that said user must automatically exclude himself from a related discussion. None of us are "arbitrating" the debate, we are party to it. If the user you speak of was acting as arbitrator, your complaints might be well placed, but as he is simply party to the discussion, your request that he step aside is neither applicable nor appropriate.
- I have never accused you of being biased, and, again, I'd ask that you submit any evidence to the contrary you can find. I also did not say your arguments were "silly", that comment was made in reference to the continuing discourse on this issue, even after a mediation was held over it in 2008. I apologise if that came off as condescending to your own efforts. Night w (talk) 09:16, 24 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 Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia. An edit must be judged solely on the technical merit of the edit. An edit must never be judged on the qualifications or perceived motives of the editor. Dolphin (t) 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Dolphin's assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
The above-statements are not completely clear to me as it is stated: "In my view, Albertoarmstrong has NOT made a personal attack on Alex Sims." but it is "ad hominem". Based on these, I just removed the ad hominem reference from the talk page.
I'm not completely familar with Wiki policy, so can a Wiki editor advise me what is the procedure to: 1) remove the NPOV banner from the Rumble Strip article; and 2) how do I contest what appears to be promotional material and exaggerated claims (i.e. New Zealand refenence) in the article? Thank you. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Alberto. Thank you for responding here.
- A personal attack on another User is a serious misdemeanour on Wikipedia. See WP:NPA. Personal attacks often result in the offender being blocked for a period of time. Alex Sims has raised a complaint that you made one or more personal attacks on him. My assessment of the facts presented by Alex is that you are not guilty of a personal attack on Alex or anyone else, and therefore you can be confident no disciplinary action will be contemplated as a result of Alex’s complaint.
- You are new to Wikipedia and you made a mistake that many of us make early in our editing careers – you reacted to some of Alex’s edits by making comments on a Talk page about Alex himself, his knowledge of the subject, his prior involvement (or lack) with the article; even his educational qualifications and field of employment. These things are irrelevant to Alex’s edits and should not have been used in a way that is adverse to Alex. When you see one or more edits that you believe don’t add to the quality of an article the best thing to do is to be bold and delete those edits; and then go to the editor’s Talk page and explain why you deleted them.
- When an NPOV banner, or some other similar banner, is placed on an article, and you believe the banner is inappropriate, I recommend you start a new thread on the article’s Talk page giving your view on the banner and inviting other interested Users to contribute their views. (I acknowledge you have made many good edits at Talk:Rumble strip#NPOV Feb 2010.) It will soon be clear whether the matter attracts little or no attention, or starts a long discussion among multiple Users. If there is no discussion, or there is some consensus about the inappropriateness of the banner, then you would be at liberty to delete it. If there is substantial opposition to deleting the banner, or any similar dispute regarding article content, it would be appropriate to request input from independent Users by raising the matter at WP:RFC. Also, see WP:Resolving NPOV disputes.
- Wikipedia is supported by article Talk pages, User talk pages and a whole category of dispute resolution mechanisms to assist Users to participate without getting too frustrated by the actions of others.
- Please don’t hesitate to comment further here on what I have written, or to make further enquiries about how to continue contributing to Wikipedia. The Wikiquette alerts community is happy to provide advice and guidance to help keep Wikipedia running as smoothly as possible. Dolphin (t) 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Dolphin, Based on your clarification, I have "toned-down" my comments on the Rumble Strip Talk Page. Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Volunteer team, thanks for your efforts here but the article concerned continues to suffer from original research (complete with photos), Synthesis of arguments and Ownership by Albertoarmstrong (talk) as well as a bias against Rumble Strips being generally evil due to their effects on cyclists and the need to build up readership of the article. We have both been trying to get another editor interested, but in the words of the most recent "new person", "I determined I have better uses of my time than this article". I think I've been welcoming and inviting to a new editor, but there is a continual "don't understand" with regards to basic policies and the pillars on which Wikipedia is based. Given this and the small number (two) of active editors for this article, probably the best path for myself is to worry about something else. Alex Sims (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi volunteer team,
- The volunteer team needs to go back about 5 or 6 months (prior to my involvement) and look at how underdeveloped the article was. I'm only interested in a concise, complete and accurate development of the Rumble Strip article. I have supported everything I wrote with a wide variety of highly regarded up-to-date references. The cycling references were mainly added by previous editors and I wrote around them. There are 4 "original work" photos in the article but I'm only responsible for 2. It is difficult to use photos from references due to copyright issues.
- The Rumble Strip article is my first Wiki article and I'm not the proficient with Wiki rules and editing functions, but I'm getting better.
- The above-allegations are new (they are not reflected in Rumble Strip Talk Page). The NPOV banner was installed on Feb 10, 2010, but it has no expiration date. It appears it was placed up on speculation hoping someone would come along and successfully challenge what I wrote, but to-date no one has. So, is the banner going to stay up indefinately? This appears to be an abuse-of-process. Even uncashed cheques are staled dated after 6 months.
- I have attempted to discuss the NPOV issue with Alex on his Talk Page and the article Talk Page, but he has been reluctant to engage me.
- Alex wrote: " ... as well as a bias against Rumble Strips being generally evil due to their effects on cyclists and the need to build up readership of the article" ????????? If one reads the literature, it is very clear they are only effective in favouable circumstances. Why waste tax payer's money on frivolous installations?
Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedJohn Bessa has seen fit to turn his user and talk pages into billboards advertising his feelings and opinions about Knight of BAAWA and myself. The content disputes we have had with him are not relevant to this alert, though they do form the background of his complaints. I am bringing this matter here in the hope that someone will inform him, in a respectful but direct manner, that statements like "BAAWA's hate leads to paranoia, or is it his paranoia that causes his hate?" and "BAAWA spews hate disguised as anti-hate, which is believe to be a recent adaption by people who hate (or feel an need to use hate) to the successes of the very types of anti-hate movements that I worked with in my lifetime..." are not acceptable. Furthermore, he should be informed that user and talk pages are not designed to serve as blogs for original writing or for speculation as to the motives, emotions, or psychological make-up of other editors. This seems to me to be a clear violation of Wikiquette. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've left a note there. Perhaps this can be resolved quietly... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have left a note for SHEFFIELDSTEELTALKon his talk page. As I mentioned on his talk page, there are two issues, only one of which concerns WP; the other is a research issue. The research angle is a very important component of what the material on my personal page is about. It will be completed on another wiki, though the basis of the information is from WP. I also mentioned that I am very, very busy with work over the next two weeks (though I will probably have time after that) so there may be a delays to my responses and my attempt to bring the situation to a happy ending. But, sadly, the scope of the "BAAWA/RepublicanJacobite" issue is so vast that there is no way I can complete it quickly -- and then there is the research angle.
- Thank you very much for reading my material (and I might add that I am seeking others' opinions on the psychological hypothesis mentioned there, which is working very well in real-life model testing).--John Bessa (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have deleted this material. The full rationale is posted at User talk:John Bessa. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Problems with Doniago and Penbat
Problems with Penbat
I could really use some advice on how to proceed in resolving this situation. Several days ago I reverted edits made by Penbat. Said editor edited Mobbing to include links to numerous films, and then added same as a "See Also" link on multiple film articles in a very short period of time. Concerned that this might be vandalism as there were no edit summaries and the changes were being made extremely quickly, I reverted the edits and gave Penbat a Level 2 Vandalism warning, as Penbat isn't a new editor and past editors have raised concerns on Penbat's Talk page.
Penbat's initial reaction to my changes was to ask for adminhelp and open an item at WP:AN (a situation which was archived without resolution, btw) without notifying me of either action. Rather, they left a heated message on my Talk page which indicated they -might- take action (but didn't reflect the actions they actually took).
Since then Penbat has characterized my edits as Vandalism, reverted my reversion of their edits despite discussion on the Mobbing Talk Page which hadn't reached consensus but certainly didn't seem to support Penbat's initial changes, and has left edit summaries and notes on other users' Talk pages which border on personal attacks, if they don't in fact go well past the border.
I don't feel Penbat's reactions to my reversion of their edits are in any way warranted, and given their behavior since then I don't feel I can have a constructive dialog with them.
Please advise as to how I can best resolve this issue. It is very frustrating to see my good faith actions consistently criticized by a user who in turn shows no willingness to concede any responsibility of their own or a willingness to discuss the matter. Doniago (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- If it is true that you reverted Penbat's links to numerous films, and similar links at See also, primarily because the edits were not accompanied by edit summaries, were made in a very short period of time, and because other Users have raised similar concerns at Penbat's Talk page, I would say your actions were inappropriate. Giving Penbat a vandalism warning was definitely not warranted. I am not surprised Penbat has not reacted well.
- The quality of an edit must be based solely on the technical merit of the edit itself. Extraneous considerations such as the absence of edit summaries, the speed of editing, and what other Users have thought in the past are usually not relevant to the technical merit of the edit in question. When you see the need to revert an edit, but there is some possibility the edit might have been made in good faith, I recommend you leave a constructive message on the User's Talk page explaining why you reverted his edit(s). A vandalism warning, or an angry response of any kind, should be the last resort rather than the first action.
- It will be quite a while before cordial relations between you and Penbat are possible. I suggest you take a break from editing Mobbing for at least a few days and allow things to cool down. Dolphin (t) 03:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't contributed to that page in several days at this time. In fact I wasn't even aware of its existence until Penbat's serial edits to the film articles.
- IMO, far too much weight is being placed on the use of a warning template, especially given that the definition for the warning template used is a "no faith" assumption; i.e. I did -not- assume bad faith. Also...it's one message. It isn't as though Penbat was faced with any sort of disciplinary action.
- Regardless of whether or not my edit was appropriate, I don't believe what I did in any way justifies the level of retaliation I've received since. As you didn't appear to specifically address that, I would appreciate some clarification on whether you feel that Penbat's actions -are- justfied. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you believe you have been subjected to retaliation from Penbat please respond here and give the diffs. For information on harvesting diffs see WP:D&L. The WP:WQA community will be happy to comment on specific instances of behaviour by Penbat, but you need to provide the diffs. Dolphin (t) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- You have already provided this diff and I have read it carefully. In this diff Penbat states that he is extremely annoyed but in my view that does not qualify as unreasonable retaliation or uncivil behaviour. Perhaps you can identify other examples that you regard as retaliation? Dolphin (t) 04:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Diffs-
Penbat threatens to report me to WP:AIV
Penbat reports me on WP:AN without notifying me
I'm again accused of vandalism
Rather than respond to my own WQA thread Penbat opens one of their own in apparent retaliation
Penbat continues to characterize my actions without any consideration for AGF
Doniago (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Doniago, thanks for providing the diffs.
I agree that in the following edit summaries Penbat mentions Doniago in a derogatory manner: diff1 and diff2
In general, User names should not be mentioned in an accusatory or derogatory manner in edit summaries, particularly as the content of edit summaries cannot be erased or revised.
Penbat made this adverse comment about you diff3 in response to this comment you made about him: diff
The rest of the diffs supplied by Doniago don’t illustrate significantly uncivil behaviour. It is every User’s prerogative, including Penbat’s, to raise issues of concern at WP:ANI and WP:WQA. Taking action to raise these issues, or threatening to do so, don’t constitute unsatisfactory or unacceptable behaviour.
My view of the situation is that communication between Doniago and Penbat has deteriorated progressively in a chain reaction. Each action by one has provoked an aggressive response from the other, and so on. In their frustration, both have resorted to antagonism as an attempt to repair the situation. Neither Doniago nor Penbat can claim to have displayed exemplary behaviour in recent times.
In future, Doniago should be more careful in reverting work that was done in good faith (or might have been done in good faith.) He should make greater use of User talk pages to communicate constructively about text he thinks is inappropriate or should be deleted for any reason.
In future, Penbat should resist the temptation to ridicule another User or mention another User in a derogatory manner, particularly in an edit summary. It should now be clear from this page that ridiculing another User can ultimately prove to be counterproductive. When a dispute over content gets too frustrating it is always possible to ask for input from other independent Users by raising the case at WP:RFC.
Doniago and Penbat should now both take a break of a few days from editing in areas that bring each other in to conflict. When they return, they should display exemplary behaviour towards each other. If either fails to do so, the matter can be raised again here at WP:WQA where stronger action might be considered appropriate. Dolphin (t) 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Problems with Doniago
I am having problems with user User:Doniago who has IMO behaved in a bizarre and audacious manner and i recommend that he is suspended. He has now compounded the issue by wasting even more valuable time of conscientious editors. He should have just behaved civilly by starting a discussion on Talk:Mobbing from the start instead of throwing bizarre accusations of vandalism around and making wholesale deletions to constructive text.
Tim Pierce examined my edits and no evidence of "vandalism" on my part, see User_talk:Penbat.
- my edits on Mobbing are entirely constructive - I have added material and not deleted any material
- the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
- my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing Kenneth Westhues and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.
- while i deleted no text, User:Doniago edits made wholesale destructive deletions. He deleted each of the individual "see also" entries i made in the individual film articles as well as text in mobbing. If there was any vandalism involved, it was entirely by User:Doniago not me.
- User:Doniago admitted that he knew absolutely nothing about the subject of mobbing while I am a relative expert
- when user User:Doniago undid my edits he amazingly actually rolled back well before I started the contentious text and I have had to spend time clearing up the mess as another editor worked on mobbing in the meantime
- Tim Pierce has already explained on Talk:Mobbing that the idea of using Category:Films involving mobbing is a non-starter and I totally agree with him for the reasons given.
- the edits I did created an excellent synergy with an authoritative example list of films in Mobbing (with "See also" links back to mobbing from the individual film articles) where the concept of mobbing is discussed in detail and the link by Kenneth Westhues explains precisely why each film listed is an example of mobbing. From the point of view of the mobbing article, the film list provides useful illustrations of mobbing to the lay reader as the mobbing article otherwise mainly consists of quite dry academic material.--Penbat (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this already the subject of a recent AN thread?[55], and considering he filed a report about you above, this makes this report seem a bit retaliatory. Why not just reply above? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to the question of retaliatory actions on Penbat's part, I'd submit User_talk:Twp#Mobbing and User_talk:FT2#Mobbing for consideration. Doniago (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Penbat. I can see that communications between you and Doniago have been seriously strained lately. There have been wholesale deletions of text, accusations of vandalism, reluctance to use Talk pages to discuss matters, and antagonism. The problems have escalated to the point of provocation, so both you and Doniago have been provoked to behaviour that is not normally acceptable on Wikipedia. I can see it has been very exasperating. Now there are matching reports here at WP:WQA. Hopefully those two reports can cause the heat to die down.
I have responded to Doniago’s Wikiquette alert. See the diff. I have recommended that Doniago should be more careful in reverting work that was done in good faith. I have recommended that you should resist the temptation to ridicule another User or mention another User in a derogatory manner.
Unfortunately we aren’t able to say that one User has behaved badly and the other User has behaved well. The only way ahead is for you both to leave the inappropriate and provocative behaviour in the past, and move on. I have recommended that you and Doniago take a break of at least a few days from editing in areas that are likely to bring you into conflict with each other. When you return you should both display a new, constructive approach to Wikipedia and to each other. If either fails to behave appropriately the matter should be raised again here and stronger action against the offender might be considered appropriate.
Wherever you see persistent problems with the content of articles it is always possible to use WP:3O to seek a third opinion from an independent User. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 03:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Cush
Stuck- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I would like to document here the following uncivil comments made by User:Cush on a single talk page over a 48 hour span:
- "Of course theology is BS." (20:50, 26 May 2010)
- "Theology is just circle wank, nothing else." (10:17, 26 May 2010)
- "In private, I call that bullshit." (16:53, 25 May 2010)
- "BTW a huge date range such as 440 years rather indicates that the source has no fucking clue as to the actual date of origin." (16:12, 25 May 2010)
- "Radday assigns authorship to biblical patriarchs?? Including antediluvians? Are you shitting us?" (00:11, 25 May 2010)
If this is indicative of the rest of this user's conduct on Wikipedia, I should think it should be escalated beyond a "Wikiquette alert". It seems obvious from two prior requests for comment (15:13, 4 November 2009, and 21:36, 22 February 2010 that I'm not the first to make this observation. HokieRNB 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- If this sort of concern was already escalated to RfC/U twice within the last 6 months (a step above WQA), then it's not very appropriate to bring it down to this venue. I'd suggest you move this straight to an admin noticeboard, and if that doesn't work, perhaps arbitration is the only remaining option. This is assuming that the concerns raised in the RfC/U are similar to those you are raising here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Bad behavior from User:Niteshift36
ResolvedThis user decided to make chest-puffing references to his personal fearsomeness in response to an admittedly harsh remark on my part, then proceeded to assert a unilateral right to deface my talk page. Hey, if he wants to show up to a Bullshido Throwdown, he has my invitation and blessing, but apparently he'd rather vandalize and patronize than adhere to WP:DONTBITE. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- No need to defend anything I wrote. I told the editor to stop posting on my talk page (and he continued to post on it). He did not make a similar request, so I made one further post there. As for his idea that I should fly halfway across the country to "prove myself" to him....I haven't stopped chuckling over that. And someone with as many WP:BITEy posts as he has in the AfD about his pet website has no room to invoke BITE at all. There isn't even a violation here for him to complain about. He's just getting pissy because I refuse to continue playing his game. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked Cy Q. Faunce because his behaviour fell well beyond what is expected according to the civility policy but I would agree in part with Cy Q. Faunce that Niteshift36's comments aren't exactly conducive to a calm atmosphere either. All of these edits are examples which don't exactly promote a pleasant atmosphere. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, they don't promote a pleasant atmoshpere. That wasn't my intention either. I'd already put up with days of his silliness, distortions and outright lies. Simply didn't care about promoting anything with him, pleasant or otherwise, by then. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked Cy Q. Faunce because his behaviour fell well beyond what is expected according to the civility policy but I would agree in part with Cy Q. Faunce that Niteshift36's comments aren't exactly conducive to a calm atmosphere either. All of these edits are examples which don't exactly promote a pleasant atmosphere. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
user:Andyjsmith's posting of illegal download and malware
ResolvedThe 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.
In the discussion of pending deletion for Spaceduck, the user User:Andyjsmith has knowingly posted links to an illegal downloading site offering BBC copyrighted material (without identifying it as illegal). I was baited into clicking it and routed to a site which infected my computer with malware. I've spent the last hour scrubbing it from my hard drive.
Given Andyjsmith's growing hostility and harassment of me, I am sure that he deliberately tricked me into clicking that link to damage my computer. The link was near the bottom of the page; I've manually deleted it to protect others, but it can be seen in Andyjsmith's prior edit. Just be sure your AV software is up to date.
Even if not deliberate, shouldn't he be warned for knowingly posting illegal downloads to copyrighted material and malware sites on wikipedia?
Beyond that, I feel User:Andyjsmith has breached the civility guidelines with (1.c) ill-considered accusations (frivolous sock puppet investigation) (1.d) belittling a fellow editor, judgemental edit summaries Special:Contributions/Andyjsmith ("don't feed the trolls", "more hoaxing") (2.c) lying to mislead & asserting false information (claiming he had investigated links, but he hadn't)
as well as discrediting me on other peoples' talk pages, and making my own (talk) page look like a war zone with all the red alerts, when he could've easily told me on the article talk page what I was doing wrong.
A cursory look at his Special:Contributions/Andyjsmith shows that he's on a crusade to speedily delete anything he doesn't agree with, without offering any constructive input or discussion. I'm not the first newbie he's antagonized. Isn't there a rule about good faith and no biting?
I don't care so much about the harassment, but that illegal downloading site and malware attack was brutal. Clearly a violation of wiki rules and US federal law.
What can be done about a user like this? Chazella (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Chazella is engaged in sockpuppetry and trolling (of which this is an example). I foolishly fed the troll. This user's contributions, those of Wikisicky and the edit history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck make the situation very clear. It's also worth noting that the article that this row is about, Spaceduck, has previously been speedied as an obvious hoax. andy (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with andy - Chazella is not making reasonable arguments on the AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree; this seems to be merely trolling. I began the AfD discussion in question but have refrained from further comment; if this is evidence of bias, so be it. I'll just suggest that anyone interested in this matter should look at the entire complicated edit history of the AfD and the talk pages of everyone mentioned in the above paragraphs, etc., and make up their own minds. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is nothing more than trolling. For those that are interested, this is the diff which gives the website details of the supposed 'malware' that Andy posted. I have checked the torrents website with AVG and perhaps not surprisingly AVG reports "Safe: This page contains no active threats". From all the research I've done the page seems to be legal and it is most certainly not trying to download malware to any computer! The BBC website mentioned is also showing up as OK and the BBC are definitely not an illegal website! Can I ask though why the AFD discussion now has a copyright tag placed on it? --5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- As a note for the reviewing admin, Chazella was recently given an indefinite block for vandalism via the AIV process. GregJackP (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just one more note - this got spammed to quite a number of pages. Probably best to ignore and move on. Shell babelfish 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Stuck- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It didn't take long for the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Jensen:_Do_serious_accusations_from_potentially_biases_sources_require_a_higher_standard_of_proof.3F to degrade into name-calling. I'm almost relieve it all fell apart before I could manage my first reply to the abuse (and inevitably get sucked in): [56], [57], [58], [59]. Rvcx (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a problem that you and Off2iorob attempted to make your own personal judgement on a 123 page paper written in 1969 in educational psychology.
- Usually in psychology textbooks this particular paper is referred to as notorious or controversial. This is a preposterous thing to attempt to do. When we edit wikipedia articles, we can't read research like this ourselves - we need secondary sources and the same thing applies on WP:BLPN. There you claimed that [Donald T. Campbell]] was a malicious academic (what evidence?), that commentary from his article was malicious (what evidence), that Jensen hadn't published any statements on eugenics (what evidence?), or on rote learning vs abstract conceptual learning [level I vs Level II] (what evidence?), that he had never published anything on applying this differentially to blacks and whites (what evidence?). You responded so quickly that you couldn't have looked at the sources I provided (about six different sources). You made claims of libel about published books by Cambridge University Press and University of Illinois Press, probably without ever looking at the books to substantiate that very serious allegation. The quick fire comments suggested that there was no attempt to examine sources. I would that would take the average person about 2 or 3 hours. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I did none of those things, however I did spend ninety minutes reading through a lot of material trying and failing to verify some text about Jensen's views on race. If reliable sources can be found for the statements then great; post them at the noticeboard. But I'm not able to work with you if you take such an insulting, condescending, and combative approach. Rvcx (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- You responded extremely rapidly, making unfounded statements about potential libel. On the other hand, you cannot have had any chance to examine my arguments in a calm way nor to go about checking the sources, which as I say would take 2-3 hours. Instead you started analysing the 1969 paper of Jensen. I questioned why you thought you were in any position to make remarks on such a paper (as wikipedia editors we certainly can't). I objected because you were acting as if you had some expertise in being able to interpret such a paper. No wikipedian has that expertise. That is why we use secondary sources. Why did you make statements about libel? Why did you start trying to analyse whether Jensen had discussed eugenics? You were responding far too rapidly - too me at the speed of a video game - without carefully examining the sources, or indeed paying any attention to the detailed remarks that I wrote. The fact that you have brought this here is not particularly helpful, is it? Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good grief; has it occurred to you that it might take less time to read or look up a source (particularly one that you've either already read, or have readily available) than it does to make a post on Wikipedia? Has it also occurred to you that calling other Wikipedians "amateurs", even during difficult situations, is likely to serve to escalate a dispute rather than deescalate? And finally, has it occurred to you that you could effectively convey the same point without the bad faith assumptions and increasingly strident rhetoric? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- You responded extremely rapidly, making unfounded statements about potential libel. On the other hand, you cannot have had any chance to examine my arguments in a calm way nor to go about checking the sources, which as I say would take 2-3 hours. Instead you started analysing the 1969 paper of Jensen. I questioned why you thought you were in any position to make remarks on such a paper (as wikipedia editors we certainly can't). I objected because you were acting as if you had some expertise in being able to interpret such a paper. No wikipedian has that expertise. That is why we use secondary sources. Why did you make statements about libel? Why did you start trying to analyse whether Jensen had discussed eugenics? You were responding far too rapidly - too me at the speed of a video game - without carefully examining the sources, or indeed paying any attention to the detailed remarks that I wrote. The fact that you have brought this here is not particularly helpful, is it? Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I did none of those things, however I did spend ninety minutes reading through a lot of material trying and failing to verify some text about Jensen's views on race. If reliable sources can be found for the statements then great; post them at the noticeboard. But I'm not able to work with you if you take such an insulting, condescending, and combative approach. Rvcx (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(od) May I suggest that mathsci refactor this post. Then we can all move on with our lives. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also consider refactoring the part about "reality" in this comment also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also the part about arbcom which is uncalled for. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries like this aren't really helping the situation. Rvcx (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And we're still going. Rvcx (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or is MathSci's behavior absurd? Here [60] he accuses me of accusing Williams Tucker of being "a dishonest and partisan liar," when, in fact, I have done nothing of the sort. If anything, I think that the problem is either that MathSci misinterprets Tucker or that Tucker has made an honest mistake. Perhaps a more senior admin could counsel MathSci about his behavior? He has heeded none of the advice provided above by other uninvolved editors. His contributions are 99% excellent, but his attitude when challenged on the other 1% is, I think, uncalled for. David.Kane (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- What we have here is a clear over reaction to what seems to general indifference to the WP:CPUSH issues currently plaguing various race related articles. I don't think Mathsci's behaviour is excusable, but I expect that until the WP:CPUSH issue is resolved flareups like this will continue. A.Prock (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
<= In this case David.Kane opened a case on WP:BLPN claiming that only critics ill-disposed to Arthur Jensen had reported that he had suggested the possibility of rote learning for blacks. When I realized the submission had been made, two editors were simultaneously active on BLPN, rapidly adding comments, so that any carefully documented response by me always ended up with multiple edit conflicts: I found that extremely confusing. Just things going too fast. Now as it turns out, after a lot of hard work (as is usual with locating neutral secondary sources), I have found several other sources, two of which have now been posted on BLPN. They make exactly the same statement as the one contested by David.Kane, but this time are written by writers of straightforward textbooks (on psychology and gifted education). That lays to rest the claims of a BLP violation. On WP:BLPN I did have the impression that editors were too quick to assume that David.Kane's claims were correct; but it was quite a strange and highly unusual submission accompanied as it was by unsupported hearsay about two quite eminent academics, whose reputations remain unblemished. I imagine it was confusing for everybody; certainly it was for me. I apologize unreservedly to Rvcx for any offence accidentally caused during the handling of this extraordinary and, as it turns out, unwarranted submission. Apologies again. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- First, your narrative of the events is just plain false. The initial notice requesting help verifying some text went up at 14:19, the first response was posted almost two hours later, your rebuttal came twenty minutes after that, my first post addressing the initial complaint was another twenty minutes later (i.e. three hours after the original notice), and my followup including a broader review of sources was another half hour after that. That's all it took for you to start attacking me as an ignorant amateur who hadn't read anything and didn't know what I was talking about.
- You also mischaracterize the substance of the concerns that have been raised, but this isn't the venue for that discussion.
- What I find particularly troubling is that even now you seem to deny any legitimacy to the points that other editors have raised. I appreciate your fresh attempt at a civil tone, but you still don't seem interested in real engagement, only in getting your own way. Rvcx (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- What legitimacy could there be given a reasonable knowledge of the 123 spage manuscript, the high standards of an academic publisher like University of Illinois Press and the impeccable reputation of the two authors? I think I spent a lot of time writing and researching the article, so, like other editors on the page, familiar with the extensive literature (History of the race and intelligence controversy has over 80 references all put there by me), there was not much doubt of the correctness of the summary. But to make that evaluation needed a lot of experienece with the material: I've spent two months on this material, [The same applies to Orgelbüchlein which will take 4 or 5 months probably (included continuing to learn all the pieces on the organ).] The problem is that wikipedians cannot make a summary of a primary source, particular in this case where it concerns a very controversial paper. We have to use use a secondary source. But of course, in real life, when we're not wearing our wikipedian hats, we're perfectly capable of checking what's said in the article, when it's not too technical. But that is no use for editing. Finding secondary sources takes a long time, sometimes hours just for one source or image. Ingenuity is required. It took me about twelve hours to find everything. For eugenics that would have been even harder, just because those writing on eugenics, particularly in the context of African Americans, are rarely neutral, for fairly obvious reasons. So for a complex historical document like this, finding new secondary sources when somebody requests them is not really feasible. Many editors commenting on that page, including administrators, judged that the request was without merit. Having looked at the two new sources, do you agree that the statements cited there are not BLP violations? Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have made my views on the content dispute clear over and over again, and every time you have simply refused to consider the possibility of any problems with what you've written. We all know that writing is hard. Finding sources is hard. But if you write something and it's tough to verify, or it assigns undue weight to one inconsequential matter, then it needs to be fixed. This isn't a negation of your time or effort. What's more, if there is one lesson you need to internalize about Wikipedia it's that justifying anything on the basis of your own expertise is completely inappropriate. Assuming that other editors don't have your expertise, and that they need to prove their qualifications before you will consider the input: also inappropriate. Rvcx (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- What legitimacy could there be given a reasonable knowledge of the 123 spage manuscript, the high standards of an academic publisher like University of Illinois Press and the impeccable reputation of the two authors? I think I spent a lot of time writing and researching the article, so, like other editors on the page, familiar with the extensive literature (History of the race and intelligence controversy has over 80 references all put there by me), there was not much doubt of the correctness of the summary. But to make that evaluation needed a lot of experienece with the material: I've spent two months on this material, [The same applies to Orgelbüchlein which will take 4 or 5 months probably (included continuing to learn all the pieces on the organ).] The problem is that wikipedians cannot make a summary of a primary source, particular in this case where it concerns a very controversial paper. We have to use use a secondary source. But of course, in real life, when we're not wearing our wikipedian hats, we're perfectly capable of checking what's said in the article, when it's not too technical. But that is no use for editing. Finding secondary sources takes a long time, sometimes hours just for one source or image. Ingenuity is required. It took me about twelve hours to find everything. For eugenics that would have been even harder, just because those writing on eugenics, particularly in the context of African Americans, are rarely neutral, for fairly obvious reasons. So for a complex historical document like this, finding new secondary sources when somebody requests them is not really feasible. Many editors commenting on that page, including administrators, judged that the request was without merit. Having looked at the two new sources, do you agree that the statements cited there are not BLP violations? Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
More insulting behavior from MathSci [61] (note the edit comment). Is this sort of behavior encouraged at Wikipedia? If so, I should start making my edit summaries snappier! David.Kane (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Harassment with alleged sexual innuendo
The following has been placed on my discussion page [[62]] User:PeeJay2K3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brudder Andrusha (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 May 2010
- I dont know that I agree about "sexual innuendo", but the reinsertion of that content on a userpage is inappropriate. I have left a note on the users talk page [63] Active Banana (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's not inappropriate to reinsert content when the other user refuses to take the message on board. By starting this discussion here, User:Brudder Andrusha has shown a complete disregard for the message contained within WP:DICK, which was the whole reason for me posting it on her talk page to begin with. – PeeJay 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is inappropriate. See WP:OWNTALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Sean.hoyland and I add that this can lead to edit-warring which is obviously not a good practice, especially on other users' talkpages. Not to mention that I just noticed that the reverts were made using the rollback tool. In cases where there is no vandalism involved using rollback to revert is clearly improper and can lead to the removal of WP:ROLLBACK. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 11:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's not inappropriate to reinsert content when the other user refuses to take the message on board. By starting this discussion here, User:Brudder Andrusha has shown a complete disregard for the message contained within WP:DICK, which was the whole reason for me posting it on her talk page to begin with. – PeeJay 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- When someone removes something from their talk page, you shouldn't put it back again. They saw the message already, and don't want to see it again. Take your own advice, and don't be a dick about it. Dream Focus 12:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Picking up on the "sexual innuendo" part: no, it's not (as I'm sure Brudder Andrusha now realises). However, I'd recommend in future that PeeJay2K3 avoid such terse communications. If it's necessary to say "don't be a dick", I feel it's also necessary to explain why you feel another editor is being "a dick". This doesn't entirely fit within WP:DTTR, but it's not far off. TFOWRpropaganda 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
User:G8crash3r has ignored a Final Warning about NPA
ResolvedThe 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.
User:G8crash3r recieved a final warning regarding WP:NPA on May 22 [64]. Today the editor resumed the personal attacks, calling me a Wikinazi. [65]
(Before this most recent attack, I had previously brought the matter here to ask for a third party to intervene and remind G8crash3r that personal attacks are not acceptable. However, that request became entangled in another more complicated request and no one responded to either [66])
This time I am hoping that G8crash3r will be told in no uncertain terms that personal attacks are not tolerated. Active Banana (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC):
- Oh, yeah, how about Ceoil, why not include him? --g8crash3r 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- You need to fix your signature g8crash3r, per WP:SIGLINK. "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) So far, my knowledge of Ceoil personal attacks have been limited to one day and one editor, which have not quite reached the point that I feel seeking third party intervention is necessary. But if you have other evidence that this is a pattern of behavior which requires outside intervention, please feel free to compile the evidence and file a notice of his behavior on your own. If there have been editors other than myself that he has attacked, I fully support the community working in a manner that will reduce the enviornment that tacitly allows personal attacks to be made over time without consequences. Active Banana (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- while I was posting above, this series of edits appeared and did cross the line, but third parties were simultaneously intervening.' Active Banana (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, it is egregious enough to warrant a block, with or without warnings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) So far, my knowledge of Ceoil personal attacks have been limited to one day and one editor, which have not quite reached the point that I feel seeking third party intervention is necessary. But if you have other evidence that this is a pattern of behavior which requires outside intervention, please feel free to compile the evidence and file a notice of his behavior on your own. If there have been editors other than myself that he has attacked, I fully support the community working in a manner that will reduce the enviornment that tacitly allows personal attacks to be made over time without consequences. Active Banana (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- You need to fix your signature g8crash3r, per WP:SIGLINK. "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment: I'd almost be OK with "Wikinazi". I am not OK with the exact phrase used: ...Active Banana is such an arrogant Wikipedia Nazi... as it seems to clearly violate WP:NPA: ...political...epithets... directed against another contributor. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ceoil's edit summaries calling the removal of "was blessed with" vandalism (eg [67] and one shortly before that one) suggest that he doesn't understand the behavior we expect from editors. If G8crash3r does not make it clear that he understands that his behavior is not acceptable and that he will stop, he can expect to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (I know this is closed, but as Ceoil says his bare 'rv' edit summary wasn't meant to indicate vandalism, it's only fair that I mention it and not leave my edit as it stood. His talk page comments...) Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Such a comment is unacceptable, past history or not. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. As far as I am concerned, he can either take this block as a warning that such comments are not tolerated, or he can take advantage of an unblock request to evidence to an unblocking admin that he has, very much so, learnt to alter his behaviour and understands how to be civil. He has clearly been told before, and needs to learn that final warning means final warning. SGGH ping! 18:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for intervening SGGH; agree 100%. Will close this thread as the ANI is open on the same subject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
ÅlandÖland
I'd like to report some uncivility from the above user User:ÅlandÖland. See also [68]
- I tried to enter a simple post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths to which the user responded, but continued to do so with sarcastic edit summaries such as "some truths" and "advice to inexperienced user" totally against WP:DONTBITE.
- At no point have I attacked him yet he has also left two messages on my talk page to suggest that I have. He also made an edit summary on his own talk page "reverting personal attack. even though i have tried to clam the user down" when I tried to talk to him.
- And finally when I left him another message, his advice was simply "One good way to stop this discussion is easy. I dont answer you and you dont write me anymore. If you continue to write me or being uncivil i will have to give you further warnings. Happy editing".
While I don't want to report him for any ban, I've been upset and offended by his tone with me, when all I was trying to do in the first place was make one suggestion. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the IP above. I messaged AlandOland on his talk page. (By the way, for being an IP with no other edits you look quite well experienced in policies and WP. Do you usually edit(ed) with another account? No accusation, just a curiosity.) --Cyclopiatalk 22:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have given a final reply on my talk page. Hope this is the end of this debate. There is always two sides of a coin. And i personally took offence by comment made by this IP adress to. But i am willing to look beyond that if our agreement stays as it is. I will not comment on this any further.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I've just used my IP for a while now having previously tried to use an account, but found the politics like this unsavoury incident put me off. I'd rather stay making just small edits without any of the politics on the large scale. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think we can probably let this drop now. Whilst several people think Åland was plainly wrong, I don't think any good would come of pursuing this. The mature thing, imo, is just to move on. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
User repeatedly attacking privacy by adding inappropriate content to an article
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereHi there is somebody who is not signed in and repeatedly adding content about Peter McCormick and Audrey Campbell into following article, and connecting them with various crimes. This is not acceptable and none of the mentioned above has nothing to do with that page. Can please provide with help how to stop such an abusive attack. Article : Escort_Ireland
Best regards John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John31031 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have cross posted a notice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard requesting other editors to help watch for BLP issues at Escort_Ireland. Active Banana (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet accusations from admin
See diffs: [69], [70]. I tried to resolve this on the user's talk page, pointing out lack of evidence and the non-constructive nature of accusations like this that aren't acted on. As a new user, am I expected to act with complete disregard and ignorance in order to avoid this sort of thing? I don't want every action I make being given a black mark by an admin. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- As your comments haven't addressed the issue, I'll ask the obvious question. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under a different user name? Dayewalker (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. I've read a lot of policy over the years though, just through idle browsing of arguments on talk pages, etc., and I've certainly read through a few policy docs. I've made a few minor edits as an IP over the past five years. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- AfD is a hotbed of sockpuppetry and many sockpuppets have been caught out by behavioural indicators like over-familiarity with process. There are no 'black marks' here, no template warnings on your talk page, no entries in your block log, no SPI report; righteous indignation at the suggestion that you're not a new user is an overreaction. If you're a new editor then ignore this and get on with editing. Fences&Windows 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. I don't fancy having my comments invalidated because people like you decide to append them with "sockpuppet". This would have ended if you were able to swallow your pride and recant the statements you made, or explain how they are constructive and not just attacks on me because you disagreed with my AfD request; instead you restated them as fact[71]. You're making these accusations publicly where other people will read them. I don't want an immediate negative reputation because of your problem. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- But let's just forget it. I can't see you cooperating in any way, and this is publicly documented well enough for me now. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Fences and windows said (in the diff above) you're not a new user. You said in this very section that you've been here for years. What is there to argue about? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's not what happened. Please familiarise yourself with the edits that I have provided diffs for. I was accused of creating sockpuppet accounts which is not the same thing as having read Wikipedia for a number of years and making a few minor edits without an account some time ago. I was accused of making multiple accounts for the purpose of creating an AfD, which is not something to accuse a user of in casual conversation. So far any effort to resolve the admin's approach to new users have hit a brick wall so it seems useless for me to continue trying to find some justification for it. The only thing I can take away from this is that principles such as WP:GOODFAITH can safely be ignored by established admins where convenient. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Fences and windows said (in the diff above) you're not a new user. You said in this very section that you've been here for years. What is there to argue about? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- AfD is a hotbed of sockpuppetry and many sockpuppets have been caught out by behavioural indicators like over-familiarity with process. There are no 'black marks' here, no template warnings on your talk page, no entries in your block log, no SPI report; righteous indignation at the suggestion that you're not a new user is an overreaction. If you're a new editor then ignore this and get on with editing. Fences&Windows 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. I've read a lot of policy over the years though, just through idle browsing of arguments on talk pages, etc., and I've certainly read through a few policy docs. I've made a few minor edits as an IP over the past five years. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Incivility by User:Androstachys
StuckIn the course of a content dispute on Talk:Lindblad resonance, Androstachys has engaged in several personal attacks directed against me. Examples include:
- "It is not my job to teach you basic English"
- "None so blind as those who will not see"
- In the context of a discussion of dictionaries, "Do look up the word 'mumpsimus'". This not only implies I don't know what the word means, it also implies that I am one (for those who need a definition, it is "a person who obstinately adheres to old ways in spite of clear evidence that they are wrong; an ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform", per Wiktionary)
- This insult was then repeated, after I said my patience for personal attacks was running out, "Rather than making inappropriate threats have you even bothered looking up the word 'mumpsimus'?"
I also have grave complaints about Androstachys' editing behavior, though I recognize that this is probably not the right forum to discuss that. We have put out an RFC, but so far it has been ignored. But I especially would like something to be done about the personal attacks. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- My Chambers Dictionary defines mumpsimus as "an error cherished after exposure: stubborn conservatism". It would need an ultra-sensitive soul to see a personal attack or insult in this. A large part of his/her indignation seems to be based on speculation as to what I was implying. I also resent BlueMoonlet's "grave complaints" about my "editing behaviour" without being specific. This really is much ado about nothing Androstachys (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- You were talking specifically about looking up words on Wiktionary, where the definition is as I quoted it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Discuss the CONTENT of the article and not the CONTRIBUTOR. Active Banana (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No - you assumed that I wanted you to look up the word in Wiktionary. But ask yourself why I would invite you to consult Wiktionary when I had just criticised its treatment of the word "media". Really, cut me some slack! Androstachys (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- So are you trying to say that you didn't mean any offense? There are less confrontational ways of saying so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn't and of course there are. I think most other editors would have shrugged it off. Androstachys (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well then let me put it more plainly: you think/thought wrong. Please strike those parts of your commentary quoted explicitly at the top of this Wikiquette alert report, and ensure you engage in appropriate conduct during discussions in the future (making a statement that you will would go a long way also). That will be enough to resolve this WQA (unless you want this to be marked stuck where the filing party would be required to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn't and of course there are. I think most other editors would have shrugged it off. Androstachys (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- So are you trying to say that you didn't mean any offense? There are less confrontational ways of saying so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No - you assumed that I wanted you to look up the word in Wiktionary. But ask yourself why I would invite you to consult Wiktionary when I had just criticised its treatment of the word "media". Really, cut me some slack! Androstachys (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No - I don't think that any reasonable editor would feel that my words were uncivil. BlueMoonlet triggered this incident by patronisingly telling me "It is not Wikipedia's job to fix "mistakes" made by reliable sources. I am reverting the changes now. If you come up with relaible sources to support your view, we can talk again in this space about changing it back. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)" and then displaying hurt innocence when I responded in kind. Androstachys (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Something else - The heading of this complaint reads "Incivility by Androstachys" as if that were a foregone conclusion - the reason for the matter to be discussed here is to determine whether I was uncivil. It is a prejudicial heading. Androstachys (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- A look at the comments suggests that it is an appropriate heading so there is no sense in changing it - that you are utterly unreceptive to the feedback that has been given to you suggests that there is little point in continuing this further at this venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look at the article and the dispute. A bit of shallow research clearly shows that BlueMoonlet is right on both accounts - grammar and (in)civility. IMO this was a civil remark, whereas this reply was uncivil. I have restored the grammatically "correct" version and left a comment on the talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing up this matter, which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities. Androstachys (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel that "this matter was cleared up", then why did you continue acting on the article ([72]) and on the talk page ([73]) as if no matter was cleared up? Do you think that these edits are compatible with expressing thanks "for clearing up this matter"?
Furthermore, do you think that this ("which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities") was a civil comment? DVdm (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think civility and incivility assume a very blurred appearance when discussed by this forum. Androstachys (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think that your remark was appropriate? DVdm (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely! That's why I made it. Androstachys (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- So first you revert someone's action, and four minutes later you say thanks for the action which you just reverted, mentioning "clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities". You think that this is appropriate and civil. Really? DVdm (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely! That's why I made it. Androstachys (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think that your remark was appropriate? DVdm (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think civility and incivility assume a very blurred appearance when discussed by this forum. Androstachys (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel that "this matter was cleared up", then why did you continue acting on the article ([72]) and on the talk page ([73]) as if no matter was cleared up? Do you think that these edits are compatible with expressing thanks "for clearing up this matter"?
- Thank you for clearing up this matter, which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities. Androstachys (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have left a 3RR on Androstachys' talk page.
I also have reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit Warring by Androstachys. DVdm (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Stuck- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Telling a user to "grow up" [74] and responding "Fuck off" when warned about it [75]. Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log, it seems the user has been previously blocked for similar incivility and should know better. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that it appears pointless as you have already been adequately warned, but I don't see anything to indicate it is a joke. If so, it is a poor one: You must *sharply* dial back your abuse of other editors, or I feel confident you will not be able to edit, eventually. - Sinneed 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Warning editors to stop making personal attacks rarely works. More often, the warning simply makes them more upset. "Fuck off, troll" is a predictable response. Warnings are only effective with unregistered users and brand new users.
M.F. is a productive and hard-working editor who is not skilled at social interactions. He has contributed very much to the project, and he has gratuitously alienated a lot of people in the process. He's not a nice person, it turns out, and the fact that being nice is more effective in the long run than being rude doesn't register with him. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but M.F. doesn't care, at least not that I've ever seen.
Am I wrong, Malleus? Am I painting a false picture here? I'd like to be corrected, if I am wrong.
It is entirely possible, likely even, that M.F. will eventually be banned. However, this sort of thing takes a lot of effort, and usually drags out over weeks and months. Informing him of "infractions" against the NPA policy is simply not going to get you anywhere good. An RFC/U is probably more effective, not because it will have any impact on his behavior, but simply because it documents the problem for some future ArbCom case.
Sorry, but that's how it tends to go around here. I wish it weren't true. :( -GTBacchus(talk) 14:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wont comment on your particular assessment of User:Malleus Fatuorum, but your assessement of the process appears to be very valid. :-( Active Banana (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well... I'd like to be wrong about both. Wikipedia is not a social experiment, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it's rather successful. As a social experiment, it's an utter failure. Ultimately, the key to a satisfying experience here is to fully accept this fact. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wont comment on your particular assessment of User:Malleus Fatuorum, but your assessement of the process appears to be very valid. :-( Active Banana (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Warning editors to stop making personal attacks rarely works. More often, the warning simply makes them more upset. "Fuck off, troll" is a predictable response. Warnings are only effective with unregistered users and brand new users.
- I would say that it appears pointless as you have already been adequately warned, but I don't see anything to indicate it is a joke. If so, it is a poor one: You must *sharply* dial back your abuse of other editors, or I feel confident you will not be able to edit, eventually. - Sinneed 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting discussion, for its insight into the dishonesty and double standards at the heart of wikipedia. In which alternate universe is "I think you need to grow up" considered to be a "personal attack", but "He's not a nice person" isn't? Insane. Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that GTBacchus is an administrator and I'm not, could it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you? HalfShadow 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) I don't think you're a bad person, Malleus. Do you think that you're "nice"? Is that how you describe yourself? I did asked to be corrected, if I'm wrong. Will you correct me?
As for my being an admin, I spoke the same way I speak now before I was an administrator, and if I ever stop being an administrator, I'll still speak that way. I'm honest.
Being not-very-nice isn't a sin, nor is it a crime. I think it's not very helpful, either, but you're a grown-up - you can decide how you want to interact with others.
I predict that the tone you take with others will eventually get you banned, and I'll be sad when that happens, because you do good work. Lots of it.
For sure, though, if my statement: "he's not a nice person" is inaccurate, then correct me. Show me my error.
By the way, I do not consider "I think you need to grow up" to be a personal attack, and I think that leaving a warning for it on your talk page was a foolish response. I think that "I think you need to grow up" is an honest assessment of someone's behavior, from your perspective - just like "he's not a nice person" is an honest assessment from my perspective. I consider "fuck off, troll" to be a incredibly misguided thing to say, which is too bad, because you are a lot smarter than that, no question.
Of course, if you look at the situation empirically... what percentage of the time do you think "you need to grow up" ends up being helpful, in the sense of really convincing the person to reconsider their actions? Is it about 90% of the time? 20%? 50%? And yes, I'm fully aware that "he's not a nice person" is unlikely to make you think twice about anything. I didn't say it for your benefit, but more to point out that giving you warnings is silly. Do you disagree? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) I don't think you're a bad person, Malleus. Do you think that you're "nice"? Is that how you describe yourself? I did asked to be corrected, if I'm wrong. Will you correct me?
- Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you? HalfShadow 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting discussion, for its insight into the dishonesty and double standards at the heart of wikipedia. In which alternate universe is "I think you need to grow up" considered to be a "personal attack", but "He's not a nice person" isn't? Insane. Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that GTBacchus is an administrator and I'm not, could it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, with the exception of your prediction that my honest assessment of the character, abilities, and honesty of certain other editors will inevitably result in my being banned. My hope is that wikipedia's rationally run replacement will be in situ by then, but if not, tough. Hopefully the cry-babies will one day be able to have this social experiment all to themselves, without the nuisance of having to pretend to be writing an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- How can you disagree with a question? Do you find that saying "you need to grow up" often makes people say, "gee, he's right. I need to grow up!"? If not, then why say it? I'm genuinely curious, what the thought process is there. I'm confident you've thought about it, because you clearly don't act mindlessly. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome, somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Sometimes that means being "nice", sometimes that means being "nasty"; there isn't a one size fits all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I just haven't observed the cases where being nasty led to a desired outcome. Your statement of pragmatism is one I completely agree with, but I've found that showing (honest) respect is almost always more pragmatic than nastiness. If being nasty is sometimes helpful, perhaps we should document that, so people can learn how and when to be nasty. (I'm not being sarcastic.) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome, somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Sometimes that means being "nice", sometimes that means being "nasty"; there isn't a one size fits all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- How can you disagree with a question? Do you find that saying "you need to grow up" often makes people say, "gee, he's right. I need to grow up!"? If not, then why say it? I'm genuinely curious, what the thought process is there. I'm confident you've thought about it, because you clearly don't act mindlessly. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, with the exception of your prediction that my honest assessment of the character, abilities, and honesty of certain other editors will inevitably result in my being banned. My hope is that wikipedia's rationally run replacement will be in situ by then, but if not, tough. Hopefully the cry-babies will one day be able to have this social experiment all to themselves, without the nuisance of having to pretend to be writing an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you?" What's it to you, HalfAssedShadow? I shall continue to do as I've always done, exactly as I like, when I like. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after e.c., I am addressing GTBacchus here) I don't think it is helpful at all to make statements about what kind of a person someone is, unlike commenting on someone's edits or even someone's behaviour. I have seen Malleus Fatuorum assist young editors way beyond what is the norm here at Wikipedia. I think that is not only "nice", it also helps the encyclopedia. Just because someone is sometimes grumpy and cantankerous doesn't make him "not a nice person". Moreover, I find your prediction unhelpful, and just to balance it out for those who believe in self-fulfilling prophecies. I think MF will be here for quite a while, improving content, and showing the way to a lot of editors who request his assistance. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you?" What's it to you, HalfAssedShadow? I shall continue to do as I've always done, exactly as I like, when I like. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If a fool comes to my talk page with stupid civility warnings then they ought to know what kind of a response they're likely to get. If that's a bannable offence, then so be it. The loser is wikipedia, not me. I find GTBacchus's obsession with being "nice" to be completely incomprehensible. The last thing I'd want anyone to call me was "nice". It's such a nothing word. In fact, I consider "nice" to be a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let's just say that I would deeply and truly regret if GTBacchus's prophecy came true. I don't think it will, and I (cloutless though I am) would certainly try to prevent it from happening. I agree with your assessment of stupid civility warnings. I find them stupid too. It just would be regrettable if politics took over and the civility police (note, no quotation marks, I agree with that characterization) took over. In real life I grumble and lash out. Here, I manage to restrict myself. I don't care what you do, but please don't do anything that will get you in more trouble. Your contributions are far too valuable. And that's the quintessential truth, Ruth. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, civility has a very simple raison d'etre. This is a collaborative effort. We all collaborate better by being civil with each other. Like Sluzzelin, I am also very blunt in real life and in other online environments, but here I strive to be civil, because that's the way to go if we want this place to work. --Cyclopiatalk 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- We're not all the same Cyclopia; I value honesty and integrity way beyond "civility". If wikipedia doesn't, then that wikipedia's problem, not mine. Let's remind ourselves why this thread was started. I said that I believed that someone ought to grow up. During this thread, I've been told that I'm not a nice person and that as a result I'm going to be banned. Does any of that make any sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit coflict) No, Mal, I wasn't talking to you. There would be no point in telling you that you're not nice (which you seem to embrace anyway). I think there's a point in telling others that it's useless to leave civility warnings on your talk page. Do you agree, that such warnings are useless? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, completely useless, but what's worse, counter-productive. What will this silly little thread achieve, other than time wasted? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely. The waste of time could have been avoided in two ways: if you hadn't typed "fuck off, troll", or if the other guy had just fucked off quietly. The latter is, I expect, not very common. That's the only point I've ever tried to make about civility - an ounce of restraint prevents a pound of nonsense such as this. If you don't show the restraint, then you've pretty much requested the nonsense. That seems to be how the world works. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, completely useless, but what's worse, counter-productive. What will this silly little thread achieve, other than time wasted? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit coflict) No, Mal, I wasn't talking to you. There would be no point in telling you that you're not nice (which you seem to embrace anyway). I think there's a point in telling others that it's useless to leave civility warnings on your talk page. Do you agree, that such warnings are useless? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- We're not all the same Cyclopia; I value honesty and integrity way beyond "civility". If wikipedia doesn't, then that wikipedia's problem, not mine. Let's remind ourselves why this thread was started. I said that I believed that someone ought to grow up. During this thread, I've been told that I'm not a nice person and that as a result I'm going to be banned. Does any of that make any sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If a fool comes to my talk page with stupid civility warnings then they ought to know what kind of a response they're likely to get. If that's a bannable offence, then so be it. The loser is wikipedia, not me. I find GTBacchus's obsession with being "nice" to be completely incomprehensible. The last thing I'd want anyone to call me was "nice". It's such a nothing word. In fact, I consider "nice" to be a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Obsession", wow. I only observe what works in some situations, and what tends to create static. I think avoiding static is good, for purely practical reasons. The wheels turn more smoothly without it.
Sluzzelin, thanks for your reply. I think you're essentially right. All I was really trying to say is what Malleus himself seems happy enough to say: He often behaves in a grumpy and cantankerous manner. He doesn't "suffer fools", nor does he want to (according to what he just said). I suppose it wasn't helpful to compress all of that content into "not a nice person".
When you refer to civility police, I don't know who you mean. Personally, I've always believed that treating civility like a rule or a law is completely foolish. I also think that doing things that get people's backs up is foolish, because it creates heat and static, and reports on boards like this. Apparently, it's "incomprehensible" that I think it's practical to avoid heat and static by taking a respectful tone (which I know I don't always succeed in doing).
That's just what it is, I guess. I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it, and I'm not going to put a warning on anyone's page. I wish you all a good day. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't get bent out of shape, don't put warnings on the talk pages of constructive content contributors, and don't report them on boards, then I think we are quite alike. The only difference is, perhaps, that despite my own efforts to remain "civil" (how I hate that word, by now), I really resent the attempts to get rid of consistently constructive content editors just because they said you need to fuck off. I will withdraw from this discussion now, unless someone is ambitious enough to bring it to WP:ANI. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Huh. I thought it was clear from my very first post in this thread that I don't think giving talk page warnings to established users is ever a good idea. I've never reported anyone on any kind of board, at least not that I can remember. I don't hate the word "civil", though, and I won't talk about "civility police", because I refuse to let that word be hijacked into meaning something it doesn't mean. Letting "civility" mean mindless avoidance of any blunt or direct criticism is a capitulation I won't make, because if you let your opponents define the terms in the language, then you have already let them win. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that. I would never initiate one of these silly threads but others do, and nobody has the balls to say they're childish, because that would be "uncivil". Yet because I don't, others assume that the complaints brought here have some merit. Just look at Yworo's opening remarks: "Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log ...". This place is deeply dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If it's so dishonest (and you're so "honest") - what would you recommend? I think WP will go on, personally... Doc9871 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did I misread something here? Isn't this the place where children come to complain about an editor being rude to them? When did it become a forum for a debate on wikipedia's inevitable demise? Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If it's so dishonest (and you're so "honest") - what would you recommend? I think WP will go on, personally... Doc9871 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that. I would never initiate one of these silly threads but others do, and nobody has the balls to say they're childish, because that would be "uncivil". Yet because I don't, others assume that the complaints brought here have some merit. Just look at Yworo's opening remarks: "Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log ...". This place is deeply dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Huh. I thought it was clear from my very first post in this thread that I don't think giving talk page warnings to established users is ever a good idea. I've never reported anyone on any kind of board, at least not that I can remember. I don't hate the word "civil", though, and I won't talk about "civility police", because I refuse to let that word be hijacked into meaning something it doesn't mean. Letting "civility" mean mindless avoidance of any blunt or direct criticism is a capitulation I won't make, because if you let your opponents define the terms in the language, then you have already let them win. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't get bent out of shape, don't put warnings on the talk pages of constructive content contributors, and don't report them on boards, then I think we are quite alike. The only difference is, perhaps, that despite my own efforts to remain "civil" (how I hate that word, by now), I really resent the attempts to get rid of consistently constructive content editors just because they said you need to fuck off. I will withdraw from this discussion now, unless someone is ambitious enough to bring it to WP:ANI. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Obsession", wow. I only observe what works in some situations, and what tends to create static. I think avoiding static is good, for purely practical reasons. The wheels turn more smoothly without it.
- Block this guy. This is beginning to be way over the already high bar of what is reasonably acceptable. --Cyclopiatalk 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, don't block this guy. Block me instead, for telling the person who suggests to block this guy, that that would be idiotic fom the perspective of the encyclopedia. There are tremendous differences in the perception of what is "reasonably acceptable", and we should strictly adhere to pure menefregismo as far as sensitivities are concerned. Content is queen, and blocks of the suggested kind would do harm to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing that prevents Malleus Fatuorum from providing great content without being incivil and creating problems with other editors. I personally don't mind if he insults me, but I mind about keeping a decent collaborative environment, and I mind about fairness in applying rules that should be roughly the same for everyone. Content is queen; but creating problems between editors doesn't help content. --Cyclopiatalk 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- How would you know? [76] Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after ec with MF) Cyclopia, you say: "There is nothing that prevents Malleus..." Maybe there is. Maybe Malleus isn't so malleable, that we can just ask him to change his temperament to suit our preferences. Maybe he's a complete package, a person who does a lot of good work, and sometimes says "fuck off".
Rather than assuming we can control the way he interacts with others, perhaps we just need to ask ourselves if his presence here results in a net gain for the project, or a net loss. I'm not ready to say he's more harmful than helpful; I would be engaging in wild speculation to do so. If you think he's a liability to the 'pedia, WP:RFC/U is that way, but you'll find that a lot of people value him highly. Bringing him to this board is beyond pointless, or so it would seem. We must, after all, be pragmatic. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I am a researcher at a quite good university. I have produced several scientific publications and stuff. I am sure I am more valuable to society, in this strict utilitaristic sense, than the random guy that packs shelves at Tesco. So, if I need some money, I could punch that guy in the face and rob him of his money. What do you think, that I can tell the judge "Hey Your Honour, you know, if you put me in jail there is a net negative for society because I couldn't conduct any more research on Parkinson disease for all that time" and expect to be released?
- In principle, it could even make sense. The problem is obviously that, if fully applied, it would make the world hell. Because the problem is not Malleus himself. The problem is that if we allow a free card to every valued contributor to behave as s/he prefers and to bully other editors, we create a (virtual) world that becomes rapidly toxic to editors. And this is, pragmatically, not good for the encyclopedia. Better to lose a contributor today than one hundred tomorrow. --Cyclopiatalk 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- When a girl I know in RL tells me to "fuck off", I get upset (doesn't happen too often, mind you ;>). When Mal tells me to fuck off, it bounces right off my thickened skin. Don't block him on account of li'l ol' me - although I was horribly rude to him, and probably need my "hat straightened" and "arse kicked". Not necessarily in that order... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It bounces off my skin too. But perhaps not all editors are as thick-skinned as we are. Again, the point is: do we want to make this a place where only thick-skinned bullies can thrive, or where we collaborate with each other, without necessarily probing each other personal sensitivity to harsh insults? --Cyclopiatalk 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cyclopia, I think I understand the position you're taking, but I wonder if you might be casting it in terms of extremes. Wikipedia is manifestly not a place where only thick-skinned bullies can thrive. Lots of collaboration is going on, right now, and Malleus is not a threat to that. He may offend a few people to the point that they leave, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia as a whole is totally given over to capricious flame-wars and insult-fests.
I think that your analogy about mugging the Tesco person doesn't take into account the differences between Wikipedia and "real life" (or whatever you like to call it ;) ). Nobody on Wikipedia is getting their nose broken, nobody is losing money, nobody is physically harmed in any way. Also, Wikipedia has an absolutely terrible version of a "justice system". The UK has a better one, that actually works a fair amount of the time.
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again: Everyone who tries to get "justice" out of Wikipedia comes to grief in the end. You can't drink whiskey from a bottle of wine, and you can't obtain justice from an encyclopedia. The UK has cops, judges, and prisons. Wikipedia has a thousand admins, some in their young teens, a rule called "Ignore All Rules", and just about as much anonymity as you can ask for.
What it really comes down to is this: If Malleus upsets enough people, there will eventually be an RFC/U. There hasn't yet been one. If there are more than about two of those, then there will likely be an ArbCom case, or someone will try to enact a community ban via AN/I. That's currently a long way from happening.
We're not actually "allowing a free card to every valued contributor to behave as s/he prefers and to bully other editors". We stop way short of that description. Thus, I sympathize with your position, but I don't think the situation is really as you characterize it.
I hope that made some sense. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Cyclopia, I think I understand the position you're taking, but I wonder if you might be casting it in terms of extremes. Wikipedia is manifestly not a place where only thick-skinned bullies can thrive. Lots of collaboration is going on, right now, and Malleus is not a threat to that. He may offend a few people to the point that they leave, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia as a whole is totally given over to capricious flame-wars and insult-fests.
- It bounces off my skin too. But perhaps not all editors are as thick-skinned as we are. Again, the point is: do we want to make this a place where only thick-skinned bullies can thrive, or where we collaborate with each other, without necessarily probing each other personal sensitivity to harsh insults? --Cyclopiatalk 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- When a girl I know in RL tells me to "fuck off", I get upset (doesn't happen too often, mind you ;>). When Mal tells me to fuck off, it bounces right off my thickened skin. Don't block him on account of li'l ol' me - although I was horribly rude to him, and probably need my "hat straightened" and "arse kicked". Not necessarily in that order... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (after ec with MF) Cyclopia, you say: "There is nothing that prevents Malleus..." Maybe there is. Maybe Malleus isn't so malleable, that we can just ask him to change his temperament to suit our preferences. Maybe he's a complete package, a person who does a lot of good work, and sometimes says "fuck off".
- How would you know? [76] Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing that prevents Malleus Fatuorum from providing great content without being incivil and creating problems with other editors. I personally don't mind if he insults me, but I mind about keeping a decent collaborative environment, and I mind about fairness in applying rules that should be roughly the same for everyone. Content is queen; but creating problems between editors doesn't help content. --Cyclopiatalk 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, don't block this guy. Block me instead, for telling the person who suggests to block this guy, that that would be idiotic fom the perspective of the encyclopedia. There are tremendous differences in the perception of what is "reasonably acceptable", and we should strictly adhere to pure menefregismo as far as sensitivities are concerned. Content is queen, and blocks of the suggested kind would do harm to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's clear that I don't fit in here, and I never will, but I see that as wikipedia's problem, not mine. For me, wikipedia is a repository for the content that will hopefully one day be transferred to wikipedia mark II. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Maybe there is. Maybe Malleus isn't so malleable, that we can just ask him to change his temperament to suit our preferences" We cannot make him change his temperment and he has no control over the initial emotional response he has, but he does have complete control over whether he decides to click the "save page" button with his initial reactions on the page. Active Banana (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As did you. So what led you to believe that your contribution was in any way helpful? Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- or maybe he doesnt. Active Banana (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, it may well be that there is nothing any of us can do to convince you to remain part of the WP editing community. However, rather than simply throw someone out, the wp:consensus is that reasonable efforts should be made to convince disruptive editors to instead be less disruptive, and hopefully edit to improve the encyclopedia. Those who cannot or will not cut down to an acceptable level of disruption are blocked from editing, or they stop editing on this one project on their own because
ofthe community's methods are "at best ill-considered" or whatever.- Sinneed 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- As did you. So what led you to believe that your contribution was in any way helpful? Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Maybe there is. Maybe Malleus isn't so malleable, that we can just ask him to change his temperament to suit our preferences" We cannot make him change his temperment and he has no control over the initial emotional response he has, but he does have complete control over whether he decides to click the "save page" button with his initial reactions on the page. Active Banana (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's clear that I don't fit in here, and I never will, but I see that as wikipedia's problem, not mine. For me, wikipedia is a repository for the content that will hopefully one day be transferred to wikipedia mark II. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You first of all have to agree on a common definition of "civility", not the childish "Please Miss, Malleus said he thought I should grow up" nonsense that passes for it in this lunatic asylum. I don't, for instance, consider a comment such as "this editor should be blocked" to be civil, rather as petty vindictiveness, but as I really couldn't care less what your opinion is, I'm indifferent to your valiant efforts to have me blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Individual incidents aren't a problem. It's a pattern of behaviour that is. There are many reasons why editors might breach civility policy which don't end up here. But a pattern of behaviour that hasn't improved over a period of time isn't one. What the community is looking for is an acknowledgement that you understand, precisely, what element of your behaviour is unacceptable, and that you commit to avoiding a repeat of the behaviour in future. --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then I hope that nobody's holding their breath. Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Count me in with those asking for a block. Content provider or not, you are way out of line, in my view. Jusdafax 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to see him blocked, then take the steps that are most likely to lead there. Let's all be rational, shall we? In today's Wikipedia, an editor such as Malleus is extremely unlikely to be blocked without even having had a single RFC/U. More like two of them, followed by an ArbCom case. Simply voicing opinions on this page is not likely to lead anywhere. I doubt I'd endorse the RFC, but others would. Put your money where your mouth is.
Saying you want to see him blocked, and then not doing anything about it makes about as much sense as him saying he wants to be left alone, and then guaranteeing he won't be by saying "fuck off troll". That is: It makes no sense. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just so that I'm clear. An editor that violates one of the core policies of this project WP:CIVIL, over and over again over a period of time despite warnings, and shows no intention of changing their behaviour, will *not* get a block? Sounds to me like there's an admin ducking their responsibilities... There is nothing in policy that says that an RFC/U is required, and an arbcom case leads to content restrictions or a ban, which is completely OOT as a reaction at this point in time. --HighKing (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing in policy that says any admin has to do a single action that they don't feel like doing. We're not paid enough for that.
ArbCom cases can lead to all kinds of results.
There may not be a policy saying that an RFC/U is required for a well-established and widely respected user to be blocked for habitual incivility. However, I live in reality, and not in a fantasy land where Wikipedia is run strictly according to policy. Play the game like it says in the book, you'll end up losing. Play the game the way it's actually played, and you might get somewhere. Reality. Keep your eyes and ears open, and you'll more and more and more about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing in policy that says any admin has to do a single action that they don't feel like doing. We're not paid enough for that.
- The blocking policy also says that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. What disruption to the project would be prevented if you were to get your wish and I was now blocked? Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just so that I'm clear. An editor that violates one of the core policies of this project WP:CIVIL, over and over again over a period of time despite warnings, and shows no intention of changing their behaviour, will *not* get a block? Sounds to me like there's an admin ducking their responsibilities... There is nothing in policy that says that an RFC/U is required, and an arbcom case leads to content restrictions or a ban, which is completely OOT as a reaction at this point in time. --HighKing (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm voicing my opinion, which as I understand it is what this page is for. Again, it is my view that Malleus, as shown clearly in this thread, needs a time out. Jusdafax 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to see him blocked, then take the steps that are most likely to lead there. Let's all be rational, shall we? In today's Wikipedia, an editor such as Malleus is extremely unlikely to be blocked without even having had a single RFC/U. More like two of them, followed by an ArbCom case. Simply voicing opinions on this page is not likely to lead anywhere. I doubt I'd endorse the RFC, but others would. Put your money where your mouth is.
- Count me in with those asking for a block. Content provider or not, you are way out of line, in my view. Jusdafax 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then I hope that nobody's holding their breath. Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Individual incidents aren't a problem. It's a pattern of behaviour that is. There are many reasons why editors might breach civility policy which don't end up here. But a pattern of behaviour that hasn't improved over a period of time isn't one. What the community is looking for is an acknowledgement that you understand, precisely, what element of your behaviour is unacceptable, and that you commit to avoiding a repeat of the behaviour in future. --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know what it is that you want to see me blocked for. Because you don't like me for whatever reason? I don't much care for you either, but I'm indifferent as to whether or not you're blocked, and in fact I don't think I've ever called for another editor to be blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
So why is it...
...it's perfectly okay Malleus can do something like this and you all basically go 'Well, I didn't see that. Nope, nope.' when anyone else anywhere would have gotten at least a day's block? I demand Malleus be held to the same level of accountability as the rest of us would. He's no better than the rest of us, despite what he thinks. HalfShadow 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You "demand" it? So if your demand isn't met, what do you do? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, "demand". And quite frankly, I feel it's a perfectly fair one. You let him get away with shit that would get others anything up to permablocked, and it's unfair to the rest of us. HalfShadow 15:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, I asked a question. If what you demand doesn't happen, then what do you do about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- What would be the point? Apparently Malleus has a pack of 'Get out of deep shit free' cards. That doesn't make it any less valid. HalfShadow 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's invalid, man. I'm asking how you're going to back it up! Demands that you can't back up are hollow. There are reasonable answers you could give to this question. Try one. Do you need a hint? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I could probably try arbitration, but I'm not gullible enough to believe that'll accomplish anything. "Demand" seemed like the right term to use at the time; he really is getting far more leeway than anyone here deserves. HalfShadow 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. You can't try arbitration, because the prior steps haven't been taken. You can file an RFC/U, or an ANI report. Reports here are beyond pointless when it comes to Malleus. That should be abundantly clear by now. An RFC/U or an ANI report are actually halfway reasonable responses to having a problem with someone's behavior.
I will say this though... if you want to see Wikipedia ensure that someone gets something that they "deserve", then you'll end up just as disappointed as everyone else who's tried that. The only thing this site is good at is being an encyclopedia (and wasting lots of time around the edges). -GTBacchus(talk) 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. You can't try arbitration, because the prior steps haven't been taken. You can file an RFC/U, or an ANI report. Reports here are beyond pointless when it comes to Malleus. That should be abundantly clear by now. An RFC/U or an ANI report are actually halfway reasonable responses to having a problem with someone's behavior.
- I could probably try arbitration, but I'm not gullible enough to believe that'll accomplish anything. "Demand" seemed like the right term to use at the time; he really is getting far more leeway than anyone here deserves. HalfShadow 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's invalid, man. I'm asking how you're going to back it up! Demands that you can't back up are hollow. There are reasonable answers you could give to this question. Try one. Do you need a hint? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- What would be the point? Apparently Malleus has a pack of 'Get out of deep shit free' cards. That doesn't make it any less valid. HalfShadow 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, I asked a question. If what you demand doesn't happen, then what do you do about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, "demand". And quite frankly, I feel it's a perfectly fair one. You let him get away with shit that would get others anything up to permablocked, and it's unfair to the rest of us. HalfShadow 15:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to continue chucking stones, then I think you ought to consider moving out of that glass house of yours. Have you, or anyone else, ever seen me do something like this? Did you really feel that swearing on an IP's talk page was a great idea? Were you blocked for that nonsense? No, you weren't. Let's apply the same standards across the board, and not just try to impose them on everyone else, as it appears that you are attempting dishonestly to do. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- He makes a good point, HalfShadow. Do you do that sort of thing often? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No I don't. Furthermore, that was taken out of context and he knows it. That was an error on my part, but unlike Malleus, I can actually admit to that. HalfShadow 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Half, you seem (as I see it) to be taking this way too personally, and I suspect you may be being baited (wp:AGF fails me here). Unless Malleus's behaviour merits a community ban, I don't see anything to be done here. As I read the situation: The editor is content with their behaviour. The editor seems to clearly understand that the community does not approve, and has firmly stated that the editor does not care and will not change. Does anyone think I have this wrong?- Sinneed 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict - reply to HalfShadow) Well, good, that you don't do it often. There's not a good context for it, but you seem to know that. Malleus' statement above that you highlight also had a context, and I read it as pretty congenial. I'm pretty sure the recipient took it that way, too.
The comment that started this whole report... that was Malleus asking for this report. He knows damn well that if he wishes to avoid this kind of crap, then it's very, very, very easy to do. I think he likes the attention, or he wouldn't push the buttons that any fool could tell you lead directly here. He prefers the thousands-of-words denouement to simply getting rid of the person who's bothering him. Else he would have chosen the latter, but he didn't.
Isn't that right, Malleus? If not, why are we here? Let's be quite honest. You have the power to avoid or cause threads here, because you know damn well that other people won't change. You choose to push the buttons that will obviously cause these reports, and you get the reward that you were after: this report. Everybody wins, right?
Someone tell me why I'm wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're wrong because you're not listening to what I'm telling you. I find this whole forum to be a childish waste of time, and if I had the power I'd close it. My view quite simply is that those delicate flowers who choose to start threads here – have you ever seen me start one here? – ought to get out more, or find something more useful to do. Anyone who objects to being asked to fuck off if they're silly enough to come to my talk page warning me about some petty infringement of their beloved "civility" policy will do so at their own risk. I just couldn't care less what this mythical "community" of half a dozen or so malcontents thinks about anything. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen you start a thread here! You started this one. Any damn fool could have told you that "fuck off troll" would lead you directly here, and you chose to say it. Therefore, you started this thread. You said above: "My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome." No rational human would think that on this Wiki, saying "fuck off troll" would lead to the outcome of you being left alone. You behaved in a way that was most likely to lead to this report, so this must have been your desired outcome. It's simple cause-and-effect.
You can't will others to be different, so you have to take their natures as given. You do what is most likely to lead here, ergo, you want to be here.
If you couldn't care less what people on this thread thought, you would never have replied. You replied, ergo, you care. Actions speak immeasurably louder than words, and your actions indicate that you love this. Otherwise, you wouldn't create it. It's all in your hands, buddy. Choose the world you want to live in. Today, you chose this one. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I most certainly did not start this thread, as any fool can see. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your logic is as faulty as your recollection of who started this thread. All I am doing, and will continue to do so long as it amuses me, is to draw attention to the deep hypocrisy displayed in threads like this one, in which editors pile on in at least an uncivil manner as their victim is accused of, and usually more so, as in this case, which has rather rapidly turned into a lynch mob. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- We're not talking about recollection, man. I can see who posted here first. When I say you started it, I mean that by saying "fuck off troll", you set in motion a chain of events that inevitably leads here. You acted in a way that was most likely to lead to a report, and you believe that rational people should act in ways that are most likely to lead to their desired outcomes. The only possible conclusions are that you wanted this outcome, or that you're not rational. I don't consider the latter to really be an option here.
If you step in front of a moving bus, and then blame it for hitting you, that's not rational. People who don't want to be hit by buses don't step in front of them. You stepped in front of this bus when you said "fuck off troll", so don't blame the bus. You asked for it; you got it. Next time, don't ask for it. Duh.
Anyone could have told you that habitually telling others to "fuck off" would lead here. You did it, so this is what you wanted. Push the button, get the food pellet; rats understand it. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look right back to the start of this thread, you'll see that the complaint was that I said to another editor "I think you ought to grow up", nothing to do with "fuck off troll". Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Mal, at least read the entire sentence. The complaint was (a) you told him you thought he should grow up, AND (b) that when he "warned" you over (a), you told him to "fuck off". If you aren't going to read entire sentences, how do you expect communication to happen? The complaint was not about (a) alone, it was (a)+(b). -GTBacchus(talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let me refresh your memory. I did not tell Ywori, the editor who started this thread, that I thought he should grow up. That comment was in response to a question asked by another editor, as you can see. My "trolling" comment was addressed to the troll who stuck his nose in univited and unnecessarily. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. That's not refreshing my memory so much as filling a gap in what I'd understood. My apologies for thinking that the person you said you thought should grow up and the person you said "fuck off" to were the same person.
That doesn't change the fact that this thread was started as a direct (and predictable) consequence of you saying "fuck off troll". People who wish to avoid this kind of shit simply don't say that kind of shit. You said it, therefore you wanted this. Next time, don't ask for something you don't want. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. That's not refreshing my memory so much as filling a gap in what I'd understood. My apologies for thinking that the person you said you thought should grow up and the person you said "fuck off" to were the same person.
- Let me refresh your memory. I did not tell Ywori, the editor who started this thread, that I thought he should grow up. That comment was in response to a question asked by another editor, as you can see. My "trolling" comment was addressed to the troll who stuck his nose in univited and unnecessarily. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Mal, at least read the entire sentence. The complaint was (a) you told him you thought he should grow up, AND (b) that when he "warned" you over (a), you told him to "fuck off". If you aren't going to read entire sentences, how do you expect communication to happen? The complaint was not about (a) alone, it was (a)+(b). -GTBacchus(talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look right back to the start of this thread, you'll see that the complaint was that I said to another editor "I think you ought to grow up", nothing to do with "fuck off troll". Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- We're not talking about recollection, man. I can see who posted here first. When I say you started it, I mean that by saying "fuck off troll", you set in motion a chain of events that inevitably leads here. You acted in a way that was most likely to lead to a report, and you believe that rational people should act in ways that are most likely to lead to their desired outcomes. The only possible conclusions are that you wanted this outcome, or that you're not rational. I don't consider the latter to really be an option here.
- Yes, I've seen you start a thread here! You started this one. Any damn fool could have told you that "fuck off troll" would lead you directly here, and you chose to say it. Therefore, you started this thread. You said above: "My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome." No rational human would think that on this Wiki, saying "fuck off troll" would lead to the outcome of you being left alone. You behaved in a way that was most likely to lead to this report, so this must have been your desired outcome. It's simple cause-and-effect.
- You're wrong because you're not listening to what I'm telling you. I find this whole forum to be a childish waste of time, and if I had the power I'd close it. My view quite simply is that those delicate flowers who choose to start threads here – have you ever seen me start one here? – ought to get out more, or find something more useful to do. Anyone who objects to being asked to fuck off if they're silly enough to come to my talk page warning me about some petty infringement of their beloved "civility" policy will do so at their own risk. I just couldn't care less what this mythical "community" of half a dozen or so malcontents thinks about anything. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict - reply to HalfShadow) Well, good, that you don't do it often. There's not a good context for it, but you seem to know that. Malleus' statement above that you highlight also had a context, and I read it as pretty congenial. I'm pretty sure the recipient took it that way, too.
- Half, you seem (as I see it) to be taking this way too personally, and I suspect you may be being baited (wp:AGF fails me here). Unless Malleus's behaviour merits a community ban, I don't see anything to be done here. As I read the situation: The editor is content with their behaviour. The editor seems to clearly understand that the community does not approve, and has firmly stated that the editor does not care and will not change. Does anyone think I have this wrong?- Sinneed 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No I don't. Furthermore, that was taken out of context and he knows it. That was an error on my part, but unlike Malleus, I can actually admit to that. HalfShadow 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- He makes a good point, HalfShadow. Do you do that sort of thing often? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to continue chucking stones, then I think you ought to consider moving out of that glass house of yours. Have you, or anyone else, ever seen me do something like this? Did you really feel that swearing on an IP's talk page was a great idea? Were you blocked for that nonsense? No, you weren't. Let's apply the same standards across the board, and not just try to impose them on everyone else, as it appears that you are attempting dishonestly to do. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You really thought he would just fuck off? In what universe do you live? You could already see that he had an unrealistic view of how WP:CIVIL is "enforced", and you thought it was most likely that he would just quietly go away?
That's some insanely serious ignorance of human nature you've displayed. What you thought would be likely didn't happen. What I could have told you was likely did happen. You're batting .000 when it comes to predicting his actions. (That's a baseball metaphor.) The next time you tell someone to "fuck off", there's a reasonable chance that it's gonna blow up in your face. So, do it, and then don't whine when it blows up again. Christ. Now, you've got every reason to know what the fallout looks like, so don't ask for it again. Duh. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let me try and spell it it out for you. You live your life and I'll live mine, I'm just not interested in your psychobabble. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then why are you still replying to me? You seem very interested, like you can't get enough of me. Walk away, Malleus. Walk away. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because I think that you're a misguided soul who needs to have his hat put on straight. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I honestly appreciate that, and I can tell that you're being honest. I think we're both certain to think about what the other one said. Next time you're about to say "fuck off" to someone, you'll remember this little jaunt, how your expectations about whatshisname were dead wrong, and about how much you enjoyed it. Next time I.... huh. What have you taught me, exactly? To live my life and let you live yours? Or was it something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, I won't. I'll just be reminded of the hopeless dreamers like you who can't distinguish between an honest observation and a libellous accusation that I'm a paedophile. Shall we compare what it feels like to called a paedophile, as compared to someone telling you that I think you ought to grow up? No, I didn't think so. You disgust me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I honestly appreciate that, and I can tell that you're being honest. I think we're both certain to think about what the other one said. Next time you're about to say "fuck off" to someone, you'll remember this little jaunt, how your expectations about whatshisname were dead wrong, and about how much you enjoyed it. Next time I.... huh. What have you taught me, exactly? To live my life and let you live yours? Or was it something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because I think that you're a misguided soul who needs to have his hat put on straight. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then why are you still replying to me? You seem very interested, like you can't get enough of me. Walk away, Malleus. Walk away. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let me try and spell it it out for you. You live your life and I'll live mine, I'm just not interested in your psychobabble. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Meta-discussion
It's probably not the right place for this discussion, but I for one am finding it refreshingly enlightenting on the one hand, and disturbing on the other. It's refreshingly enlightening because GTBacchus is being honest, and describing some of what goes on here. But I've also seen blocks handed out for an editor being told to Fuck Off. So there's a lot of inconsistency being applied here. For me, the big question is, if a core policy such as WP:CIVILITY will not be upheld by an admin, why have it in the first place? --HighKing (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is often upheld by admins. That said, there's a lot of nuance (or, if you prefer, "inconsistency") in the details of how it tends to work out. Like it or not - and be it written down or not - major content contributors are given more rope, potentially to hang themselves with. Lots of admins know from experience what's likely to be effective, and what's likely to lead to an unproductive drama-fest. Blocking Mal now, for habitual incivility, falls into the latter category. If I were the sole author of reality, maybe I would have set that part up differently, but I'm not. You've got to be utterly pragmatic here, or you'll just come to grief like so many others have. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can understand an admin giving a contributing editor some leeway. I can't understand an admin letting a habitually uncivil editor ignore core policy. That's not pragmatic, that's a failure of the system. The reason that you claim that it won't be effective essentially grants editors like Mal a carte blanche to remain uncivil - and get away with it. It can only be effective if the policy is actually upheld, and excuses aren't made for so-called contributing editors. --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, change reality. I know that if I block Mal, it will lead to a ridiculous drama-fest on ANI, and you can't change that. I've seen this kind of thing go down too many times to imagine otherwise. If you can, change reality, and/or find a more willing (i.e., naïve) admin. If you want to see Mal receive sanctions for his behavior, then do what's likely to lead you there. Hint: Arguing on this page isn't it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm commenting and learning, and I don't mean to criticize. You've thrown up an honest mirror to reality. I'm interested though in why you believe it will lead to a ridiculous drama-fest on ANI. What kind of objections would you think might appear there if you were to block him? What would the argument be that you did wrong? --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind my refactoring this bit of conversation into a separate sub-section.
Suppose I block Malleus Fatuorum for incivility right now. I think that a lot of people would say that blocks should be preventative not punitive, and that Malleus is not causing any ongoing disruption. I think a lot of people would argue that Malleus is much more valuable to the project than the relatively small number of people that he's offended. I think a lot of people would go into the usual rants about the "civility police" promoting WP:CIVIL to a point that it supersedes all other policies, and how this allows "civil POV-pushers" to run amok. I think people would argue that those who are bothered by Malleus need to grow thicker skins, because he's just a gruff person, but his heart's in the right place. I think people would point to many specific examples of good work that he's done around here. (He's not just a "so-called" contributing editor, after all.) Finally, someone would overturn the block as wrongful, leading to an equivocal block record, where nobody in the future could really argue that he was justifiably blocked in the first place. I think that's the usual litany of arguments, but if I think of more, I'll let you know.
The point isn't, by the way, that these arguments are particularly good, or that I can't answer them. I can clearly argue all day; I'm kind of good at it. The point is that the unsoundness of the arguments is not a matter on which the community of admins - or the wider community - has any consensus, so even if they don't carry the day exactly, they create the drama-fest that renders the block pointless. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope - in fact, throw the whole discussion over to the Talk page of WP:CIVIL where it might be altogether more appropriate.
- So from your point of view, as an admin, do you believe WP:CIVIL as it is written is unrealistic? Impossible to enforce? Too imprecise? To precise but unrealistic? Or is WQA really a place for editors who need to get out more :-) --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. I think WP:CIVIL is both realistic and enforceable, until you run into a editor like Malleus, who is a rare kind of duck around here. He's been around for a long time, he's made a lot of good contributions, and he's got supporters who will come out of the woodwork in his defense. There aren't very many Wikipedians who combine those qualities, and lots of perfectly reasonable and helpful interactions and work, with the kind of rudeness - and I would say lack of clue - that leads them to say things like "fuck off troll".
WQA is useful for newer editors. Those are also the people for whom talk page "warnings" have any effect. When you're dealing with a well-established editor, a whole different set of (unwritten) rules kick in. Those might be worth writing down somewhere... -GTBacchus(talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind my refactoring this bit of conversation into a separate sub-section.
- I'm commenting and learning, and I don't mean to criticize. You've thrown up an honest mirror to reality. I'm interested though in why you believe it will lead to a ridiculous drama-fest on ANI. What kind of objections would you think might appear there if you were to block him? What would the argument be that you did wrong? --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, change reality. I know that if I block Mal, it will lead to a ridiculous drama-fest on ANI, and you can't change that. I've seen this kind of thing go down too many times to imagine otherwise. If you can, change reality, and/or find a more willing (i.e., naïve) admin. If you want to see Mal receive sanctions for his behavior, then do what's likely to lead you there. Hint: Arguing on this page isn't it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can understand an admin giving a contributing editor some leeway. I can't understand an admin letting a habitually uncivil editor ignore core policy. That's not pragmatic, that's a failure of the system. The reason that you claim that it won't be effective essentially grants editors like Mal a carte blanche to remain uncivil - and get away with it. It can only be effective if the policy is actually upheld, and excuses aren't made for so-called contributing editors. --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, it may not surprise anyone to know that I think the blocking policy, or at least the way in which it's practically applied, is just about as daft as the civility policy. I really can't live in a world where telling someone that they ought to grow up is seen as a personal attack punishable by banishment. That may be your world, but sure as Hell ain't mine. I was accused earlier today of being a paedophile, which I certainly do consider to be a personal attack, but I didn't come crying here about it. My view has always been that NPA should be rigorously enforced, but that CIVIL ought to be consigned to hippie heaven. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Asking somebody to grow up, is an impossible request, if the person is an adult or suffers from dwarfism. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that anybody is claiming "grow up" is a bannable offense. I think this report never would have been filed if you'd stopped short of "fuck off troll". THAT is what this thread is about, for anyone with any sense, because saying "fuck off troll" is truly dumb. Sorry, Malleus, but you made a dumb mistake. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just to make it very clear that I do not consider "you should grow up" to be any kind of offense: Malleus, I think you should grow up. Your decision to to say "fuck off troll" was juvenile, and beneath you. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have an opinion, I have an opinion. It just so happens that they're different; no big deal. When someone is clearly trolling then I will call them on it. Had Ywori not taken it upon himself to consider "I think you ought to grow up" as a "personal attack", then we would not be here. So why has nobody called for Ywori to be sanctioned, for wasting the civility police's time? Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe because he shut up quite a while ago, whereas you're still arguing. (That was an easy one! :D ) Apparently you either want this to continue, or you believe that your continued comments are likely to make it stop. The latter would be quite silly.
If you had not said "fuck off troll", we would not be here. You can't undo the truth of that statement. Next time you want to tell someone to "fuck off", remember this fun, fun experience, and realize that you're begging for another round of it. Now, if you want this to end, stop replying. If you reply, you love this, and want it continue. Actions speak louder than words. Now.... act! -GTBacchus(talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, you have an opinion, just one that I don't agree with. Last time I checked, you were trying to encourage other editors to initiate an RF/C. Is that stopping anything here? Stop discussing me, and I'll stop replying to your misinformation. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd encourage them to do it, exactly. They're likely to do it wrong, and that would be a waste of time. I'd encourage you, on the other hand, to wise up, and realize that tossing vulgarities around on this planet's en:Wikipedia is likely to lead to shit-storms just like this one. See you next time, eh? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should have stopped after "I don't know"; it was making sense until then. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can tell that this is not going to end nicely. Can you two please just go your own ways and leave each other alone. This have gone from a WQA report to a bash-fest in one day. Guys, just drop the stick.....--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should have stopped after "I don't know"; it was making sense until then. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd encourage them to do it, exactly. They're likely to do it wrong, and that would be a waste of time. I'd encourage you, on the other hand, to wise up, and realize that tossing vulgarities around on this planet's en:Wikipedia is likely to lead to shit-storms just like this one. See you next time, eh? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, you have an opinion, just one that I don't agree with. Last time I checked, you were trying to encourage other editors to initiate an RF/C. Is that stopping anything here? Stop discussing me, and I'll stop replying to your misinformation. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe because he shut up quite a while ago, whereas you're still arguing. (That was an easy one! :D ) Apparently you either want this to continue, or you believe that your continued comments are likely to make it stop. The latter would be quite silly.
- You have an opinion, I have an opinion. It just so happens that they're different; no big deal. When someone is clearly trolling then I will call them on it. Had Ywori not taken it upon himself to consider "I think you ought to grow up" as a "personal attack", then we would not be here. So why has nobody called for Ywori to be sanctioned, for wasting the civility police's time? Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just to make it very clear that I do not consider "you should grow up" to be any kind of offense: Malleus, I think you should grow up. Your decision to to say "fuck off troll" was juvenile, and beneath you. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that anybody is claiming "grow up" is a bannable offense. I think this report never would have been filed if you'd stopped short of "fuck off troll". THAT is what this thread is about, for anyone with any sense, because saying "fuck off troll" is truly dumb. Sorry, Malleus, but you made a dumb mistake. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Asking somebody to grow up, is an impossible request, if the person is an adult or suffers from dwarfism. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, it may not surprise anyone to know that I think the blocking policy, or at least the way in which it's practically applied, is just about as daft as the civility policy. I really can't live in a world where telling someone that they ought to grow up is seen as a personal attack punishable by banishment. That may be your world, but sure as Hell ain't mine. I was accused earlier today of being a paedophile, which I certainly do consider to be a personal attack, but I didn't come crying here about it. My view has always been that NPA should be rigorously enforced, but that CIVIL ought to be consigned to hippie heaven. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
View by John
Malleus has a jaded view of the admin cadre at Wikipedia, he says because we behave inconsistently (although maybe his expectations are too high). Malleus is a good editor and (I am sure) a good human being. Malleus adds good content, but disdains the civility rule that we all sign up for when we edit here. Malleus seems intelligent and therefore I am sure that if he was capable of changing his style of interaction with others he would have done it by now; he must see that it creates drama and doesn't lead to anything productive happening for anyone. Therefore, as he is smart enough to figure it out but hasn't done so, I conclude that Malleus isn't capable of changing his behavior. As he says, we should all change to be more like him. So, some inescapable conclusions:
- It seems unlikely that MF will become a civil contributor
- It seems unlikely that the project as a whole will change to formally abandon the civility requirement
- Eventually he will leave, be banned, or will adapt his style to obtain a more productive editing experience here (I can think of precedents for all three, with the last one being statistically the least likely)
- Nothing further will be gained by warning him on his talk page about incivility; after all, he has repeatedly and clearly stated that he does not agree with the civility rule and does not practice civility
- Nothing will be achieved by discussing further here (and so I move to close this report). I broadly endorse what GTBacchus says above as well. If this needs to go further, and I am not necessarily saying it does, the next step would be an RFC. Until then, we are probably done here. --John (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- John makes some interesting points, but I don't agree with any of them. As George Bernard Shaw once said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Too bad we're not makeing any kind of progress at all in this thread. Can we all just please drop it and walk away?--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will close this with a final thought. In theory, policies like WP:NPA apply equally to all, old and new alike, regardless of whether they are mindless hacks like me, some drive-by IP or a Giano. In reality, and the reason why I suspect no RFC/U has been forthcoming is that the net positive from MF's contributions outweigh his disagreeable nature. It is easy to be rude and aggressive from the safety of internet anonymity; as long as teh dramaz don't grow out of control, it should be easily regarded as a form of harmless braggadocio spawned by the kind of dutch courage that such anonymity confers. Most editors, I suspect (myself included), are not that fazed by it and above all welcome the strong content contributions. This is an encyclopedia: sniping on AN/I is less important than building strong articles. Was MF's comment a clear violation of NPA? Of course. But there's something of a double standard - let's call it leeway - when balanced against the strength of his content-driven contributions, which are considerable, salutary and commendable. Eusebeus (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Subsequent comment in new section
I'm late to the party as I've taken WQA off my watchlist for awhile. From my observation of WQA related issues over the past couple years I'd have to say I believe the above analysis is incorrect: MF is highly, not poorly skilled at social interaction. The sum of his comments indicate he enjoys the Tough Guy me against the world persona and has grokked the limitations of WP enforcement of its policies so he'll probably be around for awhile acting the way has acted in the past.
It's not clear to me that the value of cantankerous contributors outweigh the negative effects of their attitude; it's an unknown how many potential editors simply drift away from WP when encountering the childishness of amok editors.Gerardw (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)