This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
He kept spamming his disgust with the Feedback, I tried to tell him straight out that if he posted on the Feedback Dashboard then we have the choice to reply to him, thus giving him Feedback that he suppositively never wanted. He called me a moron (twice), a "lollipop," and told me I better get checked; insulting my intelligence three times in a row. He called me a "lollipop" after I recommended that he just stop his attacking. -- A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Flee. 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I started helping out on the Feedback Dashboard and I know you get all types of users. My main concern is why would you go back to his Talk page all the time, and not simply letting him be? I have found that focusing on promising users works best, but I am curious as to your motivations. Overall, his edits were sufficiently lacking in quality to warrant constructive criticism; which I assume you gave him. Also, I think your edits overall are high quality - but this dispute may have been preventable with a little more tact, and I doubt is further action is necessary. Regards, Pim Rijkee ( talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This one is comparatively minor, but also quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern.
This AfD exchange was the first time I'd had any communication with Screebo. I've highlighted the objectionable passages in the following:
AfD discussion for Seamus (dog)
As indicated above, I also posted a request for retraction to Screebo's talk, in which I civilly explained my objection. He has now made close to 100 edits, including two to his talk page, without responding. This is an otherwise productive editor who just needs to be given a clue to prevent him from continuing in the same way in the future. I would, of course, also like to see him strike the offensive comments he made, as evidence that he does finally "get it". Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 00:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
"Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars. I did call the editor a jerk after he said that to Livitup, but that is indeed being a jerk. No personal attacks is a key policy, but there is no need to be a polite suck up to someone who is this rude. SL93 ( talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
AfD discussion for Gemini Wars
Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Above, I've reproduced the context of the complaint just posted by user SL93. I've never interacted with any of these editors before; I presume SL93 chose to add to this thread after seeing the WQA notification I posted to Screebo's talk.
It's disturbing that Screebo would make comments like this just after receiving a request for retraction from a different editor over insulting comments in a separate matter. – OhioStandard ( talk) 02:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
@Screebo: Glad you're responding. I don't mind at all that Nobody Ent changed the title you objected to. Sorry you found it disturbing, but please consider that I wouldn't have been able to use that heading if you hadn't said what you said in the first place.
I'm not angry with you, or even much upset about this. I just want you to understand that you can't communicate with others the way you have. But since you've reiterated your statement that I'm either dishonest or don't understand English, have dismissed your "paranoid" remark as unimportant, and since some of your other remarks here ( e.g., "all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across" ) are escalating, I get the impression you're feeling backed into a corner over this, too chafed to be ready to address the problem.
So I'd respectfully suggest before you reply again that you ask some person whose judgement you respect to read wp:notnewspaper, the replacement for the deprecated wp:notnews. Ask whether s/he thinks it's possible that someone who's both truthful and fluent in English could see the examples that follow the phrase "most newsworthy events" as being given there in order to indicate the phrase's scope and intention. If you do, I think you'll be surprised with the result.
I guess that's what troubles me most about this encounter: Your certainty that anyone who differs from your own opinion must be either dishonest or less skilled in comprehension of English than you are. A close second would be the ease with you're personalising conflicts and ridiculing others: Despite striking your "ejaculation" comment, you're still remarking about "fanboy trivia" in this current thread. I don't play computer games, either; they're not at all important to me. But I recognise that they're important to other people, and that ridiculing another editor's interests is just begging for drama: Its disrespectful, unnecessary, and counter-productive. I think you'll see that if you can let your evident irritation subside a little. Oh, re a comment you made on your talk: I've never been to Ohio.
@Nobody Ent: I appreciate your actions and comments to try to help resolve this, and hope you'll stay involved in that way. I doubt Screebo is a bad sort; I suspect he's just reached his limit of seeing new articles whose subjects he holds in disdain. I certainly understand that: I offended someone a while back by suggesting that the great majority of our articles about fashion models, fashion modelling, and suchlike should be deleted. I concluded from the resulting drama that I probably shouldn't be commenting about the subject, or !voting in its AfD's, since I rather strongly disapprove of the industry and the whole corresponding topic area. – OhioStandard ( talk) 16:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
How about I remove the unnecessary personal comments both editors made regarding the other from the Afd and everyone strives to stay focused on the content and not each other in the future? Nobody Ent 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon
I wish to draw the attention of this page to User:Lugnuts and to request advice on how to go forward with him.
In eight years of working here on Wikipedia I have failed to come across a more persistently snide, goading and uncivil editor.
As you may consider from his contributions, his edit summaries recently have been thinly disguised attacks on me ("a user who doesn't know any better" and such) [4].
As you may see from his talk page, and mine, I have directed considerable amount of direct questions to him which have not been answered, or which have been deflected with numerous directions to Wikipedia policy. As you can also see, Lugnuts has attempted to flag up my alleged 'vandalism' in another place [5]. I disagree with his diagnosis, and have found his behaviour, tone, attitude and constant flouting of civility to be increasingly frustrating.
He has consistently ignored my genuine concerns about the work he is carrying out, not least because he is only creating stub articles in a project which requires much more than that to be useful. He refused yesterday to carry out any of the basic, tiny tasks I requested that would help other editors in the project.
He comes across as a "lone agent", without any civility, cooperation, consideration or understanding of the project he is currently failing to help.
I would like to ask for assistance. I have tried to be constructive. I admit that my own tone has not always been neutral, though under the circumstances I believe that the nature of the conversation would lead most grounded people to moments of increased frustration.
I will inform Lugnuts that I have posted this notice here. If someone could please advise as to what can be done to resolve this unfortunate series of events
doktorb words deeds 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have chosen to retire from the project rather than continue with this matter
Dok.
Lugnuts has unilaterally moved a set of pages such as Leeds Council election, 2012, which came within established patterns of articles (as seen in Category:Council elections in West Yorkshire), in a way which could be construed as part of his dispute with Doktorbuk. After each move he edited the redirect, a curious action which has the effect of making it impossible to simply revert the move without going through the WP:RM process. This seems unconstructive behaviour. Pam D 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.
Some quotes from that discussion:
I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.
As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off
BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [6]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. -- KarlB ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I opposed a proposal of Fæ's in the AN thread linked above, commenting that it was contrary to a position he had taken in an email to me in January in a different situation. I immediately received a second email indicating he believed I had violated his privacy by referencing the earlier email on-wiki. I responded by indicating that I did not believe I had violated his privacy and was forwarding to AUSC/OTRS-admin/Steward/Ombudsmen so that they could investigate the allegations that I violated his privacy. I did not disclose any content of either of his emails on Wikipedia or otherwise use my advanced permissions to access information on him. He continued to object via email and I indicated I did not desire to receive emails from him. He continued to object in the thread above, indicating I was being uncivil, disrespectful, and acting violation of my duty of confidentiality as a trusted user. He requested I withdraw the requests for review by the referenced authorities and I refused. He has continued to say I am acting in an uncivil and disrespectful manner, have violated his privacy, and otherwise made serious allegations as to my reputation as an editor and trusted user.
I filed the request at Arbcom, where he continued to accuse me of acting in a manner in violation of my duties as a user with access to advanced permissions and that I acted wrongly in not removing my original comment on AN. He has also accused me of new violations of his privacy in stating that he gave me permission to contact certain individuals in his earlier email as a means to rebut his accusation that I forwarded his email without their permission. Arbcom has opined that the matter is premature for want of prior DR and none of the responses I have received from the reviewing authorities indicate an interest in reviewing my conduct. However, Fæ mentioned this forum as the one he considers appropriate to review my conduct and the allegations he has made concerning it. I do not believe my conduct violated any WMF/WP policy nor can I find anything in my posts to him that would demonstrate the alleged incivility and disrespect (I haven't called him any names, used profanity, mocked him or the like). However, he has made extreme allegations as to my character as an editor and user of advanced permissions, so that's why I'm here. I would hope this process could determine if my conduct was wrongful and if his allegations were appropriate. MBisanz talk 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As Arbcom have confirmed by email that the still open, parallel, Arbcom request opened by MBisanz is to be interpreted in such as way that my comments may represent Wikimedia UK rather than just myself as an editor of Wikipedia, I am unable to comment here until I have reviewed the situation with the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. This is unlikely to be until next week. In the meantime I have struck my existing comments. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's take a step back and relax. If ArbCom refuses to accept because process has not been followed then we can consider this a proper step in the process. Given that real-world activities will constrain the process here, it may be best put on hold, but I will try to keep this matter open so that if it comes to an end quickly, it will be preferable. Mbisanz has made his point, Fæ could you please respond about the situation, just to have your view on the matter? I'm not talking about the taking of it to ArbCom, but specifically how MBisanz's actions affected you. (Disclosure: I've spoken a few times to MBisanz for matters on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page. Not even an acquaintance, but I have spoken to MBisanz before.) ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz - as a user with exceptionally advanced permissions, you may, at times, receive information in confidence that you really really want to tell someone else. It is not appropriate to tell someone else who lacks the level of exceptionally advanced permissions you have this information, regardless of why you think you want to tell someone else. Even obliquely, if you have a duty to maintain the confidence of other users, you are duty bound to maintain said confidence, even if other users use that against you.
You further have stated "none of those roles indicate a duty to keep the existence of communication private." This is dramatically and factually untrue. You are a "Oversighter." If I were to email you or the oversight email list and say "such and such an edit reveals my IP address, please oversight it," you would have a duty to maintain my confidentiality. Please confirm that you understand your duty to maintain said privacy. In the absence of said confirmation, I think it is imperative on you that you renounce your oversight tools.
Fae: You are overreacting. No substantial private information was disclosed. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)*3 Suggestion: How about both of you drop it? Seriously. People are allowed to change their minds from time to time. The fact that Fae held one viewpoint in one context is not damning evidence of a problem in annother context. So please try starting fresh with a clear statement of what the problem is (or with a new instance of a conduct problem) as both of you appear to be posting more on the emotional side than on the intelectual side. Hasteur ( talk) 16:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see how anything good could come from spreading this conflict into this or indeed into any other new forum, for either of the parties. Honestly, MB, what do you expect from this process? There is an obvious solution here, and that is simply for both parties to step away from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Since MBisanz wants commentary on whether or not he abused his position, I'm making this sub-section to address that one specific matter. Personally, I do believe that MBisanz has indeed made a minor point on WP:PRIVACY under 'Private correspondence' because while no community consensus exists, ArbCom has once stated that private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki.' This is not the message itself, only a brief mention on the stance. This is not 'outing' and should not be taken as such. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Since the first point is struck, the second which I also have issues with should be labeled with the following note. WP:EMAILABUSE covers mostly harassment, but states 'questionable' and Fae's about-face on the matter could be 'questionable' to MBisanz. As this is important information about an editors previous public stance, does the existence of a private e-mail (which Fae disclosed far more information) really cross a line? Fae's current stance is that the disclosure of off-wiki canvassing be made, shouldn't Fae have legitimate expectation that mere existence of a communication be known? Its the 'I want transparency!' claim and when someone else discloses a problematic position they choose to attack the individual responsible for its disclosure. Didn't MBisanz oblige Fae's current stance for the sake of Wikipedia? Why attack MBisanz when Ched's comments specifically state the ironic nature of the matter? Fae's previous on-wiki statements ARE known, the only thing MBisanz did was reveal the existence of the e-mail. And existence of an e-mail is exactly the what Fae wanted, perhaps not against himself, but it is what one should expect when they call for transparency on off-wiki canvassing. I really cannot fault MBisanz because nothing states 'don't do this'. It was only bad given the circumstance which occured afterwards, but still hindsight is 20/20 and the existance of such an email should probably have been avoided. It would have been best if Fae took the matter up privately with MBisanz and MBisanz quietly removing it, I believe that would have been the best recourse for Fae. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Demdem is consistently making changes, sometimes major ones, with articles s/he is evidently knowledgeable of. S/he arbitrarily removes information which I know to be perfectly correct, especially with the above-mentioned articles, the subjects of which I am a university lecturer.
I wrote to Demdem personally in his/her talk section. However, it seems that the person is quite decided to continue to make changes which s/he does not like, without supporting the changes with necessary evidence or by giving reasons which clearly demonstrate that s/he does not know what s/he is talking about.
This is very irksome, since I have to keep checking the articles mentioned ever so often to see what has been changed next.
I consider this to be very irresponsible of Demdem, and would like you to take the necessary actions to stop this nonsense immediately.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katafore ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2012
I see some evidence of Katafore asking Demdem not to edit articles on subjects about which his knowledge is inadequate - see example 1 and example 2. This is a sentiment often seen from new Users but, in fact, it has no basis here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are no membership requirements, no qualification exams, and no need to hold formal qualifications in anything. Consequently, if we want a User to desist from making edits on a particular subject we must find some rational grounds for requesting that. Simply telling a User that he isn't qualified or welcome to edit an article, or articles on a particular subject, is invalid. Dolphin ( t) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This dispute is regarding the above entry. User:H. 217.83 made this edit, doing two things: the first was to add "Were said to have said" before a statement they were quoted as having made in an interview, thus questioning it's validity, and added statements from an interview in a Fanzine. I reverted several times over a several month period before posting this on his wall last week explaining that I could not find any reference for the interview and very, very little on the Fanzine and that I did not feel it met WP: Reliability as it was a fanzine (it later came to light that the issue in question had been republished in a book by a well known publisher and this became the ref, which I felt does meet WP: Reliability). From the word go the users responses were aggressive, uncivil, laden with foul language and at no point sought any resolution other than his way. I lost my temper, an edit war ensued and we were both blocked for a 24 hour period. He sought help from at least two other editors, so I sought outside help as well, albeit the wrong way and came off as canvassing. I regret doing this without reading the rules, as well as losing my temper and edit warring (I knew this was wrong and admitted to it). I do, however, feel that the user selected other editors he has had positive interactions with to bring in on the issue, and that they sided entirely with him.
In the end I proposed a compromise on his talk page, and later on the article's talk page. This was also proposed by Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the users he solicited and the one that was the most active. In essence, the proposal was that material from all three sources remain, even though information from Slayer Fanzine seems to contradict what is written in the other two articles, albiet without the weasel words indicating that Blabbermouth and Sweden Rock Magazine are unreliable.
The proposal has been met with hostility on his part, and at this point I've said that I can no longer directly interact with him without losing my temper once again. I would very much appreciate it if someone could put a fresh set of eyes on this and help bring it to an amicable conclusion I would be most appreciative. Because I am appealing to an anonymous group of editors, I have no way of expecting one outcome or another, so I don't feel this is canvassing.
Thank you. -- Williamsburgland ( talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the challenges in working this issue out, and on of the things that have been most frustrating to me, is the user above's blending and mixing of facts and statements. He opens the entry above saying I accused him of using a fake statement. While he does selectively quote the comment I left on his wall, he neglects to note that the comment was a link to an article stating that a fake apology had been sent out, and that the band wanted to clarify that they had never apologized, and that they meant everything they said and approved those statements before the issue containing their interview was published. I accused him of nothing - I said that the words he was using sounded like the statement. That's all.
In regards to the sources themselves, I can't overstate this enough - this users position seems to be that he doesn't trust blabbermouth and therefore they should not be trusted, and he hasn't seen the Sweden Rock Magazine interview, so it must not exist (ironically, my initial position on Slayer Fanzine).
Is there anyone else who can act as a mediator here and share their opinion? -- Williamsburgland ( talk) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
A user is making libelous statements about me. I can't work out where I report such situations. Please advise. Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This all began when Anupam was taken to ANI for plagiarism. At ANI allegations were made against Anupam for POV editing. Glider87 was canvassed to go to ANI here [9]. I weighed in at their talkpage and Glider personally attacked me with this: "Lionel I think you are operated meat puppet style by Anupam." He continued to personally attack me with false accusations at talk:Thanksgiving where he wrote "I think there is plenty of evidence that Lionel and Anupam are meats of each other." This is outrageous. I have almost 20,000 edits and have edited thousands of articles on a myriad of topics. To suggest that I cannot edit independently and need Anupam to guide my editing is insulting and ludicrous.
What is really going on here? Glider is making these false accusations in order to change the lead of Thanksgiving. Since he has no policy and no consensus to justify their changes, they're resorting to ad hominem personal attacks. Which is what happens in a content dispute when you lose the argument on the merits. Pathetic.– Lionel ( talk) 21:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.
Some BHG quotes from those discussions:
I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.
As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off
BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [10]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. -- KarlB ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply; this has been a busy time in real life. I don't think that I have much to add to what ChrisGualtieri wrote. The problem which KarlB drew attention to was that he was making CfD nominations which had a wide-ranging effect on topics sbout which he demonstrably had little knowledge, and which would have had wider consequences. That can easily happen -- it's easy to stray into an area which turns out to be more complex than first thought -- but unfortunately Karl has on several occasions persisted in disruptively pushing a point.
An example is the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 11#Category:Hospitals_in_Ireland. Karl started by nominating the category for deletion, having improperly depopulated it, and apparently without checking the structure of categories relating to Ireland (which largely work on the basis of all-Ireland categories conta9ining RoI and NI subcats). This was a simple case of a category needing diffusion, which Karl did, but instead of leaving at that he proceeded to try to find all sorts of weird arguments to justify his original error. The result was a long rambling discussion, in which inter alia Karl failed to distinguish between lacunae in the implementation of a category structure (of which there were plenty) and conceptual flaws in its design. Pushing a point on that sort of basis leads to tensions in discussion.
As to the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Unionism, that was the next case where ventured into a complex historical topic relating to an area which has been the subject of long-term Arbcom sanctions ... and instead of seeking the expertise of editors in the relevant wikiprojects he proceeded to post at length based on snippets found in some quick googling. That is disruptive, and it is unsurprising that it frustrates other editors.
Karl's third round of this was at Cfd April 30 Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism, where I noted that "this is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. Everyone has different areas of expertise and knowledge, but it is disruptive for an editor to repeatedly pursue proposals which display such fundamental flaws". That discussion continued, with far too many examples of Karl's silliness to list here, but even when he tried focusing on simple specifics it was little better: e.g. in this comment he cited an example of somewone who he said was born in Ireland, but who was shown in the article to which Karl had linked to have been actually born in England.
Karl's concern seems to be that having repeatedly dug verbose holes for himself, he has found himself defending untenable positions which are derided. Unfortunately, he is then confusing the derision of his arguments with personal attacks, which are a different matter. The best solution to Karl's concerns would be for him to try working more collegially by seeking discussion with editors who have expertise in these areas, rather than taking a stand and scratching around for snippet arguments to support a flawed position. The point of an XfD discussion is to reach a consensus, not to hurl snippets to try to bolster a misconceived position, and I hope that Karl will reflect on how his approach has not been successful.
As to Andy Dingley's comment, his meta-complaint seems to be that I was procedurally sneaky. What happened there is actually very simple: discussions on Old Fooian categories had for years produced no consensus outcomes (most notably at a huge group nominatoion at CfD 2011 February 10, until a new "People educated at" format was adopted for the similar categories named "Former pupils", "Former students". After that, several CfDs (to which I was initially not a party) then renamed some of the Old Fooian categories. So I nominated some more of the particularly silly named-categories, and proceeded to nominate other problematic categories to find out where the limit of consensus was. It turned out that there was consensus to rename nearly all of the categories, at which point Andy made a blatantly WP:POINTy nomination to rename Category:Old Etonians. If Andy doesn't likes his actions being described as pointy, then it's besyt not to make WP:POINTYy nominations. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
KarlB and BHG would be better off reflecting on how they could each alter their own behavior to reduce tension and conflict moving forward rather than reflecting on the shortcomings of the other editor. I'm seeing less than ideal snippiness from both parties but nothing that rises to the level requiring intervention warnings or redactions. I encourage both editors to scrupulously comment on the content, not the contributor in the future. Nobody Ent 01:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. ( 1, 2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
Etiquette
2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.
Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Administrators
7) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise), or particularly egregious behaviour, may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
After a month of discussion at Pogrom, I have come to this forum after [11] and [12] these two diffs.
A great deal of improvement was reverted, not because of the content or substance, but because of a loss of WP:AGF and the resultant aggressive accusations.
These accusations took the form of accusations as to the "motive" for my edits ("one shouldn't edit purely to add the phrase "antisemitic" or exclude certain events" and "This is manufactured controversy, intended not to enlighten as to the term's meaning, but rather to undermine the entire concept of a pogrom") and spurious attempts to tarnish my research ("Cherry picking sources found through searching Google books for specific terms is not an appropriate way to find material.") Every single one of these accusations is unfounded - it seems to me to be an aggressive attempt to undermine my credibility. The problem is that the editor knows the wikiquette guidelines very well - he is an experienced editor, with his own templates User:Jayjg/NPA and User:Jayjg/NPA2 to warn other editors of the same.
We have been discussing for a month now at Talk:Pogrom/Archive_2 and Talk:Pogrom, and progress has been very slow - I have been keen not to rush things because Jayjg's sensitivity is clear. But now things seem to have broken down completely - I don't know where to go from here. Without trust and mutual respect it is very difficult to make progress. Any third party help to diffuse the situation would be gratefully received.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The forum is to assist anyone who wishes it -- sometimes the assistance comes in getting other editors to change their interaction modes, other times it's just explaining the unfortunate limitations of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is in connection with the discussion at [13]. The above user has three times referred to the arguments of the opposition as "BS" and has referred to the other users as "idiots". He also seems to think that any discussion regarding his proposals for deletion must revolve around the standards he sets and that any arguments against the deletion which are not based on his criteria are not valid. He has several times stated that the opposition has not proved that WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply and consequently there is no opposition to his proposal. 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 15:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
"Rubbish" is actually refering to what I said before. Please see this incivil edit summary Penom ( talk) 18:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
We are having a content dispute. It is addressed here [14] and I brought it to a talk page for a discussion. [15] Rather than reply on my talk page to his posts, he has replied back at my talk page even though I have asked him repeatedly not to. Here [16], here [17], here [18], here [19] and here [20]. And my requests here [21], here [22], and here [23]. This is harassment and I want it stopped. ...William 17:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
An attempt to delete my userspace pages.
Probably a personal issue - the ticket was filled on false grounds: 1) - I have edited Wikipedia outside of my userspace (as Tempac3, not as an IP) and 2) - both pages have been edited recently. Furthermore, I have left a message along an IP edit by me that I can confirm that is my account if requested [24].
He must have been looking for an opportunity to get back at me because I called him an asshole a while back [25] (I was a new member then and was supported by an admin and a long-standing member).
I'd like to notify the board in case such incidents occur in the future with this admin, and also, if he vandalizes my userspace again - be blocked from my userspace altogether.
PS: Another user has jumped in to support the false ticket - take a note of that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempac3 ( talk • contribs)
As for the forum: this almost suggests that the user is filing this to report themselves for calling me an asshole; I'll have a look at the diff, but given my advanced age combined with the number of edits I make (and insults I receive) I think I should be excused for having forgotten that they insulted me. Hold on: ... Drmies ( talk) 14:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In the discussion on this AfD one editor has invoked Wikquette, seemingly in an attempt to shut down someone who disagrees with his view [that would be me]. I've answered his comments but I don't want to go too far and be uncivil myself. Could someone else take a look. Thanks. Borock ( talk) 16:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Arcandam keeps harrassing my talk page with warnings misconstruing every edit I make. He's done it a couple of times before ( history). I think it started with this warning template I used to him after he made unexplained, unconstructive changes to the article that we were discussing. We've been in discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip pop, where he responded to the previous with "editsummaries suck", and he's been pretty hostile to me there. I've tried to make nice and be humble at his talk page and the discussion page, so the discussion is about the content and not our character, but he's responded with accusations, calling me ignorant about the topic of the articles I edit, and does not assume good faith because I disagree with him on certain content. I'm clearly on his bad side. One of his main accusations is that I canvassed, b/c I asked editors of music-related articles to comment on a music-related discussion, and I primarily edit those kind of articles. He uses this to undermine any logical argument I make. Both at his talk page and the discussion page, he's threatened to follow the edits I make, so isnt that sort of uncivil or wrong? He is not considering anything I say, so I'm done trying his talk page. Can you please help? He seems to respond better to others who havent debated him yet. Dan56 ( talk) 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
After removing much of the original research and undue material in the Becker article:
[26], Olavn characterized my edits as: "dismantling and annihilation" to another editor:
User_talk:Saedon#The_Body_Electric.
After I reverted his addition of the undue material [27], I then posted on WP:FTN about the recent additions of undue material and OR: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Robert_O._Becker. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Olavn also added an excessively large list of papers which he added: [28] which i then cut in half due to the extreme size: [29].
Olavn has now characterized my actions as meat puppetry and disruptive editing [30] (note I had already explained on the Becker talk page that large lists of research papers do not help with establishing notability: Talk:Robert_O._Becker#Nobel_Prize_Nominations). IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Annihilation refers to the way IRWolfie demolished The Body Electric - behaving like the building inspector in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (The text there was mainly a synopsis of the book The Body Electric. What he calls Original research was simply to look up in the PubMed index how many times the author had been referred to.)
Disruptive editing refers (in addition to the abovementioned annihilation) to how my attempts at including a decription of Becker's research in Robert O. Becker is consistently reverted/deleted by IRWolfie- - without even a proper explanation. (The demolishing building inspector again. How many peer-reviewed papers to list is less important - except when Beckers notability is questioned.) And he tagged the remaining short research description with "Undue weight" without explaining.
Meat-puppetry refers to his posting as described here. OlavN ( talk) 14:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is an essay, meaning it's just one or more editor's policy, not something that has community consenus. I'm not seeing evidence of incivility on IRWolfie's part; other the other hand calling a post to a noticeboard meatpuppetry isn't appropriate. Nobody Ent 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The user Bryonmorrigan is using uncivil language and combative behaviour towards the user Collect because of disagreements between them. Bryonmorrigan said to Collect "Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"???" [33] This is uncivil and combative behaviour that is not constructive. Criticism of Collect's arguments could have been done through constructive criticism rather than this derogatory uncivil and combative way. Bryonmorrigan needs to cease this uncivil language and combative behaviour. Also I believe that both Bryonmorrigan and Collect need to engage in more constructive discussions, pointing out mistakes in each others arguments through reference to reliable sources (and not their personal opinion), and if they cannot find an agreement between each other, they should seek Wikipedia:Third Opinion or a Request for Comment through proper channels on Wikipedia.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not directly involved in their argument, but I saw the post by Bryonmorrigan and found it unacceptably uncivil and combative.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I would note that the BryoMn has had similar posts about other editors, and seems not to understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and that "lively discourse" need not include personal attacks.
[34] Seriously, dude. Grow up and read a book or two. Every single reputable source on the planet...even the KKK itself...describes the KKK as Far Right. Nobody is buying your uneducated, unsourced, patently absurd, and utterly childish nonsense.
[35] Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills.
[36] that will not be changed simply to make articles fit in with your distorted weltanschauung
[37] That's a profoundly un-encyclopedic view...and would have Neo-Nazis "in charge" of the pages on Nazism
[38] Your OPINION is neither consistent with reality, nor backed up by the reliable sources, both of which prove otherwise. Social Conservatism, whether promoted by Rick Santorum or Osama bin Laden, is pretty much the very DEFINITION of "Authoritarianism."
[39] You can no more "decide" that Breivik is not a "true" Christian than you can state that Fred Phelps isn't one either. You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom. He is as much a "Christian" as any other Christian
Show clearly the methodology of BryonM's posts towards a host of editors. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to criticize R41. He came to the board in good faith. Looking at Byronmorrigan's user talk page I see there have been warnings and discussion on his page. Over the past 6 months and 350 edits he has been accused of edit warring (2), vandalism, and biting a newcomer. Now here we see evidence of incivility. This adds up to disruptive editing and I think he needs to receive a clear warning from an Admin who will follow up with a block if he doesn't adjust his tone and battleground tendency. My view of him/her is reinforced by these posts from their User page:
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
He kept spamming his disgust with the Feedback, I tried to tell him straight out that if he posted on the Feedback Dashboard then we have the choice to reply to him, thus giving him Feedback that he suppositively never wanted. He called me a moron (twice), a "lollipop," and told me I better get checked; insulting my intelligence three times in a row. He called me a "lollipop" after I recommended that he just stop his attacking. -- A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Flee. 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I started helping out on the Feedback Dashboard and I know you get all types of users. My main concern is why would you go back to his Talk page all the time, and not simply letting him be? I have found that focusing on promising users works best, but I am curious as to your motivations. Overall, his edits were sufficiently lacking in quality to warrant constructive criticism; which I assume you gave him. Also, I think your edits overall are high quality - but this dispute may have been preventable with a little more tact, and I doubt is further action is necessary. Regards, Pim Rijkee ( talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This one is comparatively minor, but also quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern.
This AfD exchange was the first time I'd had any communication with Screebo. I've highlighted the objectionable passages in the following:
AfD discussion for Seamus (dog)
As indicated above, I also posted a request for retraction to Screebo's talk, in which I civilly explained my objection. He has now made close to 100 edits, including two to his talk page, without responding. This is an otherwise productive editor who just needs to be given a clue to prevent him from continuing in the same way in the future. I would, of course, also like to see him strike the offensive comments he made, as evidence that he does finally "get it". Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 00:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
"Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars. I did call the editor a jerk after he said that to Livitup, but that is indeed being a jerk. No personal attacks is a key policy, but there is no need to be a polite suck up to someone who is this rude. SL93 ( talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
AfD discussion for Gemini Wars
Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Above, I've reproduced the context of the complaint just posted by user SL93. I've never interacted with any of these editors before; I presume SL93 chose to add to this thread after seeing the WQA notification I posted to Screebo's talk.
It's disturbing that Screebo would make comments like this just after receiving a request for retraction from a different editor over insulting comments in a separate matter. – OhioStandard ( talk) 02:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
@Screebo: Glad you're responding. I don't mind at all that Nobody Ent changed the title you objected to. Sorry you found it disturbing, but please consider that I wouldn't have been able to use that heading if you hadn't said what you said in the first place.
I'm not angry with you, or even much upset about this. I just want you to understand that you can't communicate with others the way you have. But since you've reiterated your statement that I'm either dishonest or don't understand English, have dismissed your "paranoid" remark as unimportant, and since some of your other remarks here ( e.g., "all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across" ) are escalating, I get the impression you're feeling backed into a corner over this, too chafed to be ready to address the problem.
So I'd respectfully suggest before you reply again that you ask some person whose judgement you respect to read wp:notnewspaper, the replacement for the deprecated wp:notnews. Ask whether s/he thinks it's possible that someone who's both truthful and fluent in English could see the examples that follow the phrase "most newsworthy events" as being given there in order to indicate the phrase's scope and intention. If you do, I think you'll be surprised with the result.
I guess that's what troubles me most about this encounter: Your certainty that anyone who differs from your own opinion must be either dishonest or less skilled in comprehension of English than you are. A close second would be the ease with you're personalising conflicts and ridiculing others: Despite striking your "ejaculation" comment, you're still remarking about "fanboy trivia" in this current thread. I don't play computer games, either; they're not at all important to me. But I recognise that they're important to other people, and that ridiculing another editor's interests is just begging for drama: Its disrespectful, unnecessary, and counter-productive. I think you'll see that if you can let your evident irritation subside a little. Oh, re a comment you made on your talk: I've never been to Ohio.
@Nobody Ent: I appreciate your actions and comments to try to help resolve this, and hope you'll stay involved in that way. I doubt Screebo is a bad sort; I suspect he's just reached his limit of seeing new articles whose subjects he holds in disdain. I certainly understand that: I offended someone a while back by suggesting that the great majority of our articles about fashion models, fashion modelling, and suchlike should be deleted. I concluded from the resulting drama that I probably shouldn't be commenting about the subject, or !voting in its AfD's, since I rather strongly disapprove of the industry and the whole corresponding topic area. – OhioStandard ( talk) 16:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
How about I remove the unnecessary personal comments both editors made regarding the other from the Afd and everyone strives to stay focused on the content and not each other in the future? Nobody Ent 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon
I wish to draw the attention of this page to User:Lugnuts and to request advice on how to go forward with him.
In eight years of working here on Wikipedia I have failed to come across a more persistently snide, goading and uncivil editor.
As you may consider from his contributions, his edit summaries recently have been thinly disguised attacks on me ("a user who doesn't know any better" and such) [4].
As you may see from his talk page, and mine, I have directed considerable amount of direct questions to him which have not been answered, or which have been deflected with numerous directions to Wikipedia policy. As you can also see, Lugnuts has attempted to flag up my alleged 'vandalism' in another place [5]. I disagree with his diagnosis, and have found his behaviour, tone, attitude and constant flouting of civility to be increasingly frustrating.
He has consistently ignored my genuine concerns about the work he is carrying out, not least because he is only creating stub articles in a project which requires much more than that to be useful. He refused yesterday to carry out any of the basic, tiny tasks I requested that would help other editors in the project.
He comes across as a "lone agent", without any civility, cooperation, consideration or understanding of the project he is currently failing to help.
I would like to ask for assistance. I have tried to be constructive. I admit that my own tone has not always been neutral, though under the circumstances I believe that the nature of the conversation would lead most grounded people to moments of increased frustration.
I will inform Lugnuts that I have posted this notice here. If someone could please advise as to what can be done to resolve this unfortunate series of events
doktorb words deeds 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have chosen to retire from the project rather than continue with this matter
Dok.
Lugnuts has unilaterally moved a set of pages such as Leeds Council election, 2012, which came within established patterns of articles (as seen in Category:Council elections in West Yorkshire), in a way which could be construed as part of his dispute with Doktorbuk. After each move he edited the redirect, a curious action which has the effect of making it impossible to simply revert the move without going through the WP:RM process. This seems unconstructive behaviour. Pam D 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.
Some quotes from that discussion:
I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.
As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off
BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [6]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. -- KarlB ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I opposed a proposal of Fæ's in the AN thread linked above, commenting that it was contrary to a position he had taken in an email to me in January in a different situation. I immediately received a second email indicating he believed I had violated his privacy by referencing the earlier email on-wiki. I responded by indicating that I did not believe I had violated his privacy and was forwarding to AUSC/OTRS-admin/Steward/Ombudsmen so that they could investigate the allegations that I violated his privacy. I did not disclose any content of either of his emails on Wikipedia or otherwise use my advanced permissions to access information on him. He continued to object via email and I indicated I did not desire to receive emails from him. He continued to object in the thread above, indicating I was being uncivil, disrespectful, and acting violation of my duty of confidentiality as a trusted user. He requested I withdraw the requests for review by the referenced authorities and I refused. He has continued to say I am acting in an uncivil and disrespectful manner, have violated his privacy, and otherwise made serious allegations as to my reputation as an editor and trusted user.
I filed the request at Arbcom, where he continued to accuse me of acting in a manner in violation of my duties as a user with access to advanced permissions and that I acted wrongly in not removing my original comment on AN. He has also accused me of new violations of his privacy in stating that he gave me permission to contact certain individuals in his earlier email as a means to rebut his accusation that I forwarded his email without their permission. Arbcom has opined that the matter is premature for want of prior DR and none of the responses I have received from the reviewing authorities indicate an interest in reviewing my conduct. However, Fæ mentioned this forum as the one he considers appropriate to review my conduct and the allegations he has made concerning it. I do not believe my conduct violated any WMF/WP policy nor can I find anything in my posts to him that would demonstrate the alleged incivility and disrespect (I haven't called him any names, used profanity, mocked him or the like). However, he has made extreme allegations as to my character as an editor and user of advanced permissions, so that's why I'm here. I would hope this process could determine if my conduct was wrongful and if his allegations were appropriate. MBisanz talk 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As Arbcom have confirmed by email that the still open, parallel, Arbcom request opened by MBisanz is to be interpreted in such as way that my comments may represent Wikimedia UK rather than just myself as an editor of Wikipedia, I am unable to comment here until I have reviewed the situation with the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. This is unlikely to be until next week. In the meantime I have struck my existing comments. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's take a step back and relax. If ArbCom refuses to accept because process has not been followed then we can consider this a proper step in the process. Given that real-world activities will constrain the process here, it may be best put on hold, but I will try to keep this matter open so that if it comes to an end quickly, it will be preferable. Mbisanz has made his point, Fæ could you please respond about the situation, just to have your view on the matter? I'm not talking about the taking of it to ArbCom, but specifically how MBisanz's actions affected you. (Disclosure: I've spoken a few times to MBisanz for matters on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page. Not even an acquaintance, but I have spoken to MBisanz before.) ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz - as a user with exceptionally advanced permissions, you may, at times, receive information in confidence that you really really want to tell someone else. It is not appropriate to tell someone else who lacks the level of exceptionally advanced permissions you have this information, regardless of why you think you want to tell someone else. Even obliquely, if you have a duty to maintain the confidence of other users, you are duty bound to maintain said confidence, even if other users use that against you.
You further have stated "none of those roles indicate a duty to keep the existence of communication private." This is dramatically and factually untrue. You are a "Oversighter." If I were to email you or the oversight email list and say "such and such an edit reveals my IP address, please oversight it," you would have a duty to maintain my confidentiality. Please confirm that you understand your duty to maintain said privacy. In the absence of said confirmation, I think it is imperative on you that you renounce your oversight tools.
Fae: You are overreacting. No substantial private information was disclosed. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)*3 Suggestion: How about both of you drop it? Seriously. People are allowed to change their minds from time to time. The fact that Fae held one viewpoint in one context is not damning evidence of a problem in annother context. So please try starting fresh with a clear statement of what the problem is (or with a new instance of a conduct problem) as both of you appear to be posting more on the emotional side than on the intelectual side. Hasteur ( talk) 16:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see how anything good could come from spreading this conflict into this or indeed into any other new forum, for either of the parties. Honestly, MB, what do you expect from this process? There is an obvious solution here, and that is simply for both parties to step away from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Since MBisanz wants commentary on whether or not he abused his position, I'm making this sub-section to address that one specific matter. Personally, I do believe that MBisanz has indeed made a minor point on WP:PRIVACY under 'Private correspondence' because while no community consensus exists, ArbCom has once stated that private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki.' This is not the message itself, only a brief mention on the stance. This is not 'outing' and should not be taken as such. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Since the first point is struck, the second which I also have issues with should be labeled with the following note. WP:EMAILABUSE covers mostly harassment, but states 'questionable' and Fae's about-face on the matter could be 'questionable' to MBisanz. As this is important information about an editors previous public stance, does the existence of a private e-mail (which Fae disclosed far more information) really cross a line? Fae's current stance is that the disclosure of off-wiki canvassing be made, shouldn't Fae have legitimate expectation that mere existence of a communication be known? Its the 'I want transparency!' claim and when someone else discloses a problematic position they choose to attack the individual responsible for its disclosure. Didn't MBisanz oblige Fae's current stance for the sake of Wikipedia? Why attack MBisanz when Ched's comments specifically state the ironic nature of the matter? Fae's previous on-wiki statements ARE known, the only thing MBisanz did was reveal the existence of the e-mail. And existence of an e-mail is exactly the what Fae wanted, perhaps not against himself, but it is what one should expect when they call for transparency on off-wiki canvassing. I really cannot fault MBisanz because nothing states 'don't do this'. It was only bad given the circumstance which occured afterwards, but still hindsight is 20/20 and the existance of such an email should probably have been avoided. It would have been best if Fae took the matter up privately with MBisanz and MBisanz quietly removing it, I believe that would have been the best recourse for Fae. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Demdem is consistently making changes, sometimes major ones, with articles s/he is evidently knowledgeable of. S/he arbitrarily removes information which I know to be perfectly correct, especially with the above-mentioned articles, the subjects of which I am a university lecturer.
I wrote to Demdem personally in his/her talk section. However, it seems that the person is quite decided to continue to make changes which s/he does not like, without supporting the changes with necessary evidence or by giving reasons which clearly demonstrate that s/he does not know what s/he is talking about.
This is very irksome, since I have to keep checking the articles mentioned ever so often to see what has been changed next.
I consider this to be very irresponsible of Demdem, and would like you to take the necessary actions to stop this nonsense immediately.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katafore ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2012
I see some evidence of Katafore asking Demdem not to edit articles on subjects about which his knowledge is inadequate - see example 1 and example 2. This is a sentiment often seen from new Users but, in fact, it has no basis here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are no membership requirements, no qualification exams, and no need to hold formal qualifications in anything. Consequently, if we want a User to desist from making edits on a particular subject we must find some rational grounds for requesting that. Simply telling a User that he isn't qualified or welcome to edit an article, or articles on a particular subject, is invalid. Dolphin ( t) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This dispute is regarding the above entry. User:H. 217.83 made this edit, doing two things: the first was to add "Were said to have said" before a statement they were quoted as having made in an interview, thus questioning it's validity, and added statements from an interview in a Fanzine. I reverted several times over a several month period before posting this on his wall last week explaining that I could not find any reference for the interview and very, very little on the Fanzine and that I did not feel it met WP: Reliability as it was a fanzine (it later came to light that the issue in question had been republished in a book by a well known publisher and this became the ref, which I felt does meet WP: Reliability). From the word go the users responses were aggressive, uncivil, laden with foul language and at no point sought any resolution other than his way. I lost my temper, an edit war ensued and we were both blocked for a 24 hour period. He sought help from at least two other editors, so I sought outside help as well, albeit the wrong way and came off as canvassing. I regret doing this without reading the rules, as well as losing my temper and edit warring (I knew this was wrong and admitted to it). I do, however, feel that the user selected other editors he has had positive interactions with to bring in on the issue, and that they sided entirely with him.
In the end I proposed a compromise on his talk page, and later on the article's talk page. This was also proposed by Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the users he solicited and the one that was the most active. In essence, the proposal was that material from all three sources remain, even though information from Slayer Fanzine seems to contradict what is written in the other two articles, albiet without the weasel words indicating that Blabbermouth and Sweden Rock Magazine are unreliable.
The proposal has been met with hostility on his part, and at this point I've said that I can no longer directly interact with him without losing my temper once again. I would very much appreciate it if someone could put a fresh set of eyes on this and help bring it to an amicable conclusion I would be most appreciative. Because I am appealing to an anonymous group of editors, I have no way of expecting one outcome or another, so I don't feel this is canvassing.
Thank you. -- Williamsburgland ( talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the challenges in working this issue out, and on of the things that have been most frustrating to me, is the user above's blending and mixing of facts and statements. He opens the entry above saying I accused him of using a fake statement. While he does selectively quote the comment I left on his wall, he neglects to note that the comment was a link to an article stating that a fake apology had been sent out, and that the band wanted to clarify that they had never apologized, and that they meant everything they said and approved those statements before the issue containing their interview was published. I accused him of nothing - I said that the words he was using sounded like the statement. That's all.
In regards to the sources themselves, I can't overstate this enough - this users position seems to be that he doesn't trust blabbermouth and therefore they should not be trusted, and he hasn't seen the Sweden Rock Magazine interview, so it must not exist (ironically, my initial position on Slayer Fanzine).
Is there anyone else who can act as a mediator here and share their opinion? -- Williamsburgland ( talk) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
A user is making libelous statements about me. I can't work out where I report such situations. Please advise. Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This all began when Anupam was taken to ANI for plagiarism. At ANI allegations were made against Anupam for POV editing. Glider87 was canvassed to go to ANI here [9]. I weighed in at their talkpage and Glider personally attacked me with this: "Lionel I think you are operated meat puppet style by Anupam." He continued to personally attack me with false accusations at talk:Thanksgiving where he wrote "I think there is plenty of evidence that Lionel and Anupam are meats of each other." This is outrageous. I have almost 20,000 edits and have edited thousands of articles on a myriad of topics. To suggest that I cannot edit independently and need Anupam to guide my editing is insulting and ludicrous.
What is really going on here? Glider is making these false accusations in order to change the lead of Thanksgiving. Since he has no policy and no consensus to justify their changes, they're resorting to ad hominem personal attacks. Which is what happens in a content dispute when you lose the argument on the merits. Pathetic.– Lionel ( talk) 21:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.
Some BHG quotes from those discussions:
I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.
As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off
BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [10]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. -- KarlB ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply; this has been a busy time in real life. I don't think that I have much to add to what ChrisGualtieri wrote. The problem which KarlB drew attention to was that he was making CfD nominations which had a wide-ranging effect on topics sbout which he demonstrably had little knowledge, and which would have had wider consequences. That can easily happen -- it's easy to stray into an area which turns out to be more complex than first thought -- but unfortunately Karl has on several occasions persisted in disruptively pushing a point.
An example is the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 11#Category:Hospitals_in_Ireland. Karl started by nominating the category for deletion, having improperly depopulated it, and apparently without checking the structure of categories relating to Ireland (which largely work on the basis of all-Ireland categories conta9ining RoI and NI subcats). This was a simple case of a category needing diffusion, which Karl did, but instead of leaving at that he proceeded to try to find all sorts of weird arguments to justify his original error. The result was a long rambling discussion, in which inter alia Karl failed to distinguish between lacunae in the implementation of a category structure (of which there were plenty) and conceptual flaws in its design. Pushing a point on that sort of basis leads to tensions in discussion.
As to the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Unionism, that was the next case where ventured into a complex historical topic relating to an area which has been the subject of long-term Arbcom sanctions ... and instead of seeking the expertise of editors in the relevant wikiprojects he proceeded to post at length based on snippets found in some quick googling. That is disruptive, and it is unsurprising that it frustrates other editors.
Karl's third round of this was at Cfd April 30 Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism, where I noted that "this is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. Everyone has different areas of expertise and knowledge, but it is disruptive for an editor to repeatedly pursue proposals which display such fundamental flaws". That discussion continued, with far too many examples of Karl's silliness to list here, but even when he tried focusing on simple specifics it was little better: e.g. in this comment he cited an example of somewone who he said was born in Ireland, but who was shown in the article to which Karl had linked to have been actually born in England.
Karl's concern seems to be that having repeatedly dug verbose holes for himself, he has found himself defending untenable positions which are derided. Unfortunately, he is then confusing the derision of his arguments with personal attacks, which are a different matter. The best solution to Karl's concerns would be for him to try working more collegially by seeking discussion with editors who have expertise in these areas, rather than taking a stand and scratching around for snippet arguments to support a flawed position. The point of an XfD discussion is to reach a consensus, not to hurl snippets to try to bolster a misconceived position, and I hope that Karl will reflect on how his approach has not been successful.
As to Andy Dingley's comment, his meta-complaint seems to be that I was procedurally sneaky. What happened there is actually very simple: discussions on Old Fooian categories had for years produced no consensus outcomes (most notably at a huge group nominatoion at CfD 2011 February 10, until a new "People educated at" format was adopted for the similar categories named "Former pupils", "Former students". After that, several CfDs (to which I was initially not a party) then renamed some of the Old Fooian categories. So I nominated some more of the particularly silly named-categories, and proceeded to nominate other problematic categories to find out where the limit of consensus was. It turned out that there was consensus to rename nearly all of the categories, at which point Andy made a blatantly WP:POINTy nomination to rename Category:Old Etonians. If Andy doesn't likes his actions being described as pointy, then it's besyt not to make WP:POINTYy nominations. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
KarlB and BHG would be better off reflecting on how they could each alter their own behavior to reduce tension and conflict moving forward rather than reflecting on the shortcomings of the other editor. I'm seeing less than ideal snippiness from both parties but nothing that rises to the level requiring intervention warnings or redactions. I encourage both editors to scrupulously comment on the content, not the contributor in the future. Nobody Ent 01:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. ( 1, 2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
Etiquette
2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.
Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Administrators
7) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise), or particularly egregious behaviour, may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
After a month of discussion at Pogrom, I have come to this forum after [11] and [12] these two diffs.
A great deal of improvement was reverted, not because of the content or substance, but because of a loss of WP:AGF and the resultant aggressive accusations.
These accusations took the form of accusations as to the "motive" for my edits ("one shouldn't edit purely to add the phrase "antisemitic" or exclude certain events" and "This is manufactured controversy, intended not to enlighten as to the term's meaning, but rather to undermine the entire concept of a pogrom") and spurious attempts to tarnish my research ("Cherry picking sources found through searching Google books for specific terms is not an appropriate way to find material.") Every single one of these accusations is unfounded - it seems to me to be an aggressive attempt to undermine my credibility. The problem is that the editor knows the wikiquette guidelines very well - he is an experienced editor, with his own templates User:Jayjg/NPA and User:Jayjg/NPA2 to warn other editors of the same.
We have been discussing for a month now at Talk:Pogrom/Archive_2 and Talk:Pogrom, and progress has been very slow - I have been keen not to rush things because Jayjg's sensitivity is clear. But now things seem to have broken down completely - I don't know where to go from here. Without trust and mutual respect it is very difficult to make progress. Any third party help to diffuse the situation would be gratefully received.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The forum is to assist anyone who wishes it -- sometimes the assistance comes in getting other editors to change their interaction modes, other times it's just explaining the unfortunate limitations of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is in connection with the discussion at [13]. The above user has three times referred to the arguments of the opposition as "BS" and has referred to the other users as "idiots". He also seems to think that any discussion regarding his proposals for deletion must revolve around the standards he sets and that any arguments against the deletion which are not based on his criteria are not valid. He has several times stated that the opposition has not proved that WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply and consequently there is no opposition to his proposal. 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 15:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
"Rubbish" is actually refering to what I said before. Please see this incivil edit summary Penom ( talk) 18:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
We are having a content dispute. It is addressed here [14] and I brought it to a talk page for a discussion. [15] Rather than reply on my talk page to his posts, he has replied back at my talk page even though I have asked him repeatedly not to. Here [16], here [17], here [18], here [19] and here [20]. And my requests here [21], here [22], and here [23]. This is harassment and I want it stopped. ...William 17:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
An attempt to delete my userspace pages.
Probably a personal issue - the ticket was filled on false grounds: 1) - I have edited Wikipedia outside of my userspace (as Tempac3, not as an IP) and 2) - both pages have been edited recently. Furthermore, I have left a message along an IP edit by me that I can confirm that is my account if requested [24].
He must have been looking for an opportunity to get back at me because I called him an asshole a while back [25] (I was a new member then and was supported by an admin and a long-standing member).
I'd like to notify the board in case such incidents occur in the future with this admin, and also, if he vandalizes my userspace again - be blocked from my userspace altogether.
PS: Another user has jumped in to support the false ticket - take a note of that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempac3 ( talk • contribs)
As for the forum: this almost suggests that the user is filing this to report themselves for calling me an asshole; I'll have a look at the diff, but given my advanced age combined with the number of edits I make (and insults I receive) I think I should be excused for having forgotten that they insulted me. Hold on: ... Drmies ( talk) 14:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In the discussion on this AfD one editor has invoked Wikquette, seemingly in an attempt to shut down someone who disagrees with his view [that would be me]. I've answered his comments but I don't want to go too far and be uncivil myself. Could someone else take a look. Thanks. Borock ( talk) 16:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Arcandam keeps harrassing my talk page with warnings misconstruing every edit I make. He's done it a couple of times before ( history). I think it started with this warning template I used to him after he made unexplained, unconstructive changes to the article that we were discussing. We've been in discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip pop, where he responded to the previous with "editsummaries suck", and he's been pretty hostile to me there. I've tried to make nice and be humble at his talk page and the discussion page, so the discussion is about the content and not our character, but he's responded with accusations, calling me ignorant about the topic of the articles I edit, and does not assume good faith because I disagree with him on certain content. I'm clearly on his bad side. One of his main accusations is that I canvassed, b/c I asked editors of music-related articles to comment on a music-related discussion, and I primarily edit those kind of articles. He uses this to undermine any logical argument I make. Both at his talk page and the discussion page, he's threatened to follow the edits I make, so isnt that sort of uncivil or wrong? He is not considering anything I say, so I'm done trying his talk page. Can you please help? He seems to respond better to others who havent debated him yet. Dan56 ( talk) 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
After removing much of the original research and undue material in the Becker article:
[26], Olavn characterized my edits as: "dismantling and annihilation" to another editor:
User_talk:Saedon#The_Body_Electric.
After I reverted his addition of the undue material [27], I then posted on WP:FTN about the recent additions of undue material and OR: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Robert_O._Becker. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Olavn also added an excessively large list of papers which he added: [28] which i then cut in half due to the extreme size: [29].
Olavn has now characterized my actions as meat puppetry and disruptive editing [30] (note I had already explained on the Becker talk page that large lists of research papers do not help with establishing notability: Talk:Robert_O._Becker#Nobel_Prize_Nominations). IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Annihilation refers to the way IRWolfie demolished The Body Electric - behaving like the building inspector in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (The text there was mainly a synopsis of the book The Body Electric. What he calls Original research was simply to look up in the PubMed index how many times the author had been referred to.)
Disruptive editing refers (in addition to the abovementioned annihilation) to how my attempts at including a decription of Becker's research in Robert O. Becker is consistently reverted/deleted by IRWolfie- - without even a proper explanation. (The demolishing building inspector again. How many peer-reviewed papers to list is less important - except when Beckers notability is questioned.) And he tagged the remaining short research description with "Undue weight" without explaining.
Meat-puppetry refers to his posting as described here. OlavN ( talk) 14:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is an essay, meaning it's just one or more editor's policy, not something that has community consenus. I'm not seeing evidence of incivility on IRWolfie's part; other the other hand calling a post to a noticeboard meatpuppetry isn't appropriate. Nobody Ent 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The user Bryonmorrigan is using uncivil language and combative behaviour towards the user Collect because of disagreements between them. Bryonmorrigan said to Collect "Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"???" [33] This is uncivil and combative behaviour that is not constructive. Criticism of Collect's arguments could have been done through constructive criticism rather than this derogatory uncivil and combative way. Bryonmorrigan needs to cease this uncivil language and combative behaviour. Also I believe that both Bryonmorrigan and Collect need to engage in more constructive discussions, pointing out mistakes in each others arguments through reference to reliable sources (and not their personal opinion), and if they cannot find an agreement between each other, they should seek Wikipedia:Third Opinion or a Request for Comment through proper channels on Wikipedia.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not directly involved in their argument, but I saw the post by Bryonmorrigan and found it unacceptably uncivil and combative.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I would note that the BryoMn has had similar posts about other editors, and seems not to understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and that "lively discourse" need not include personal attacks.
[34] Seriously, dude. Grow up and read a book or two. Every single reputable source on the planet...even the KKK itself...describes the KKK as Far Right. Nobody is buying your uneducated, unsourced, patently absurd, and utterly childish nonsense.
[35] Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills.
[36] that will not be changed simply to make articles fit in with your distorted weltanschauung
[37] That's a profoundly un-encyclopedic view...and would have Neo-Nazis "in charge" of the pages on Nazism
[38] Your OPINION is neither consistent with reality, nor backed up by the reliable sources, both of which prove otherwise. Social Conservatism, whether promoted by Rick Santorum or Osama bin Laden, is pretty much the very DEFINITION of "Authoritarianism."
[39] You can no more "decide" that Breivik is not a "true" Christian than you can state that Fred Phelps isn't one either. You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom. He is as much a "Christian" as any other Christian
Show clearly the methodology of BryonM's posts towards a host of editors. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to criticize R41. He came to the board in good faith. Looking at Byronmorrigan's user talk page I see there have been warnings and discussion on his page. Over the past 6 months and 350 edits he has been accused of edit warring (2), vandalism, and biting a newcomer. Now here we see evidence of incivility. This adds up to disruptive editing and I think he needs to receive a clear warning from an Admin who will follow up with a block if he doesn't adjust his tone and battleground tendency. My view of him/her is reinforced by these posts from their User page: