This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This issue has been brought up on two other notice boards - Admin incidents and Dispute resolution - I am posting this at the advice of a user on the former. The issue I'd like to address here is Ronnie's propensity for calling good faith edits vandalism and accusing users of trolling or slander (I don't know if that qualifies for WP:Legal Threat) - here are two examples of his conduct - 1, 2. You can also see the numerous cautions, warnings and bits of guidance he's received (and removed) on his talk page, as well as a comment and reciprocatetive warning he left on my userpage. The user is incredibly difficult to communicate with and seems to ignore the advice, guidance and cautioning of every single user that interacts with him. It seems he's lost interest in the article in question for the time being (he spends the vast majority of his time on talk pages) but I'd like to initiate this discussion none the less. -- Williamsburgland ( talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit troubling coming from an Administrator. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Likes to use expletives and uncivilised terms in his edit summaries etc. An example where he tells someone to "FUCK OFF". Fanzine999 ( talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
After a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
request on Thomas Sowell, the result came against removing certain material on the page.
Despite this, and despite me explicitly saying this on the talk page ( diff)( diff), the material has been removed on essentially no grounds.
Here is Thargor Orlando's reasoning for the removal:
( diff)
As far as I can tell the next step is to have arbitration but I'm not sure if it requires sanctions if someone violates dispute resolution without going into arbitration. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I should add that Thargor has been adding discussions on my page which are clearly done to detract from this process. Specifically: "There's no "Wikiquette" problem, obviously, just a content dispute that needs solving. If you're uninterested in continuing the discussion there, say so and those of us who are trying to improve the article will do so." ( diff diff)
I summarized the problem in my last response ( diff) CartoonDiablo ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Need outside advice about an on-going issue of
WP:OWNERSHIP and
WP:CIVIL. IMO,
User:DocKino is bullying his way around
the article's talk page and discouraging article improvement. Is this how wikipedia is supposed to work? ~
GabeMc
(talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
After a minor disagreement over an ENGVAR matter, the user Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs) has subsequently decided to:
Apart from the WP:NPAbreach, there are also worrying signs of a WP:HOUNDing process and a propensity to edit war over inaccuracies. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The user Widescreen has been clearly violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:DISENGAGE ( diff, diff) and despite being warned about it ( diff) has not apologized and generally continues to do it ( diff). CartoonDiablo ( talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive NPOV user, repeatedly ignoring links and discussions. is the second time the user has decided to leave insults rather than discussion. Despite being asked [2] to not. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I just redirected that shortcut for WP:DNFTT to the WP:Civility page. Actually, I think it needs to be MfD'd or PROD'd but it is an inappropriate shortcut in terms of civility. --
Avanu (
talk) 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
While much of this dispute seems to be inflamed by the apparent language barrier (Guage00 seems to have limited facility with English), there is an ongoing discussion about the range of years covered by the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a classical Chinese work. Gauge00 is convinced that the beginning year in the article, AD 184, is incorrect, and to support his position he has been arguing that the book fails to mention certain events prior to 189 that it "should contain" ( [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Three different editors (myself included) have pointed out that this is an illogical argument( [10], [11], [12]), constitutes original research ( [13]), and that wikipedia operates by consesus (see previous diff [14]). Gauge00's response, despite repeatedly admitting that he has not read the source text( [15], [16],& others), has been to assert that the particular editor who made the date change in the first place must have been at fault because a previous version said something else ( [17], [18]), that his interlocutor's are "incompetant" ( [19], [20]) and "stubborn" ( [21]), and has also focused on his belief that I'm advocating the consensus position because he believes I'm Chinese ( [22] -- for the record, " siafu" is a swahili word). I tried to remind him to WP:NPA twice( [23], [24]), but he made no acknowledgement, and continues to argue on the same lines. My personal belief is that this dispute is being fueled both by a lack of familiarity with wikiquette, and a failure in communication due to Gauge00's lack of fluency with the English language, but I honestly don't know how to proceed here. The dispute has not really risen to the level of an edit war, as yet, but could, and I'm hoping that outside help could resolve the situation better than I and others have been (not) able to thus far, and especially some advice on how to deal with editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and with limited command of English would be appreciated. siafu ( talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
On the discussion regarding deletion of a page he created ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms), Guage00 has been extremely hostile, in the discussion and in notes to his edits of the page referring to other editors as "dogs", "dusgusting morons", and "shits". Snuge purveyor ( talk) 08:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nobody involved has any intention of chastising Gauge00 for his faulty English, but that cannot be used as an excuse for attacking other editors and flaunting self-perceived authority he does not have any right to. Hurling abuse at other editors should not need a wiki page; it's quite simply polite, in any respect, to refrain from insulting others. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there really no assistance available here? Was this a complete waste of time? siafu ( talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Gauge00 today attacked an IP editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms, where the IP suggested an AfD be created to remove the List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which he created WP:POINT to prove a point from ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms. I have nominated the article for deletion as the IP requested, but Gauge00's continued abuse MUST be dealt with; there is no reason why well-intentioned editors must suffer his self-aggrandising insults. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms for further details. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm just dropping by this page because I want to know more about how to use this forum in the future. I didn't really read through all the diffs but I did get the chance to read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I think that users from both sides should review Wikipedia:Etiquette. Even if a user's post is hurtful it might be best to ignore it and kindly tell the user what you feel without commenting about their behavior or applying the policy guidelines because they may interpret it as an insult and could retaliate by insulting you guys again. If you guys have already done this then I apologize for not reading all the diffs in detail. I'm afraid that your last option should be to going to WP:ANI if no other administrator or editor responds to your posts here. 119.224.27.62 ( talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Very simple. I asked a
good faith question on the talk page for
MOS:FILM. I received a few replies that disagreed with my inquiry but were not directed toward me, but DarkWarriorblake
said I was naive to think that way. I asked
for him/her to redact the comment, but I received a
cold reply and not even an apology. This type of behavior is contrary to
WP:CIVIL as the comment was directed toward me on not on the content of the discussion, as he/she clearly said.."It is naive to think that...", meaning I was naive to think these things. I tried to ask for a redaction but was rebuffed with more incivility, by saying "How you translated that into a personal attack and inferred information suppression is some Back to the Future style time-travel reality warping chicanery."--
JOJ
Hutton 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
My advice is to just drop it and move on. Ignore the user if possible. Just a suggestion in the future if a similar incident is applied by another user towards you, just ask them politely who was the user referring to as "naive" in a short statement. I don't think that there is any need to tell them that you took it as a personal attack such as "I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal?....Is that an attack of some sort?". Some users may think that you're making direct accusations or taking their posts out of context and they may feel intimidated so they could retaliate and insult you back to defend themselves because they don't appreciate being misunderstood. I know this wasn't your intent though and I understand what you really meant but remember that when you're online some people might interpret other people's words differently. I'm pretty sure DWB didn't mean to insult you either and may not be aware that others could find his/her own post as uncivil. Remember to follow the Dealing with incivility #4: Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm. I hope that my suggestion helps :-) 119.224.27.62 ( talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
A while back, Areaseven and I had some minor disagreements over some article content (mainly images), a wrong button hit, and a patronizing comment he made towards me. Early last month, I discovered that Areaseven had retained a comment I made on his talk page months ago where I used wording that he construed as racist (my response to the previous diff). When I discovered this fact (despite the fact that he removes everything else that ever makes it onto his talk page), and also had added commentary. As he had refactored my original post, I removed his comment along with a harsh word, but then left a comment unrelated to that issue. He then reverted me. In any attempt I made to explain myself, Areaseven ignored it and continued to fail to assume any sort of good faith on my part. After a long and heated discussion with him, he removed everything I said from his page and I avoided dealing with him after leaving this final message where I attempted to end the dispute, which he reverted 2 minutes after I pressed save. The other day, I attempted to extend an olive branch, once more, and request that Areaseven write some content before another less experienced editor did. After refusing, Areaseven proceeded to add back every discussion we had. My inquiry into this behavior was ignored and Areaseven instead added his own commentary to year old occurences. Areaseven continues to fail to assume any good faith on my part, whether it be from accidentally hitting the "rollback (vandal)" link instead of the "undo" link, from an unintentional combination of words that he has latched onto as being a racist remark, or feeling referring to an action of multiple image uploads as "overboard" is a slight against him. I understand that he has some personal choice over its content, but at this point he is just being spiteful in keeping his consistent misconstrued opinions over what I've said to him. I will admit that conversations between myself and Areaseven delved into incivility, but there is no reason he should enshrining the discussions he and I have had to mock me. Also I've posted here, because the last time I posted to WP:ANI regarding a similar situation, I was told it was not meant for that board. If I'm incorrect, again, please move this and tell me where it's gone to.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello there. I am currently involved in a dispute with
User:DreamMcQueen. I have added a link to
CBS Television Stations to
List of CBS television affiliates (table) after where it says "This list does not include independent stations or stations affiliated with The CW". I am not sure why, but he decided to remove it, citing
redundancy as an explanation. What makes me concerned is the fact that he has not yet removed such links from
List of NBC television affiliates (table) (for Telemundo
O&Os) and
List of Fox television affiliates (table) (for MyNetworkTV O&Os), all three which I have added. To make matters worse, he sometimes deliberately leaves the
edit summary field blank. I have attempted to revert my edits until I decided to give up and report this, on account of the policy
WP:3RR. Also, for
List of ABC television affiliates (table), he has been repeatedly removing the
designated market area from the O&O list, even though I still kept it in alphabetical order (see edit history). He reverts my edit. I revert back again. I recently had the article put on a one-week edit lock. What concerns me is that there would be consensus at
the TV station WikiProject before the DMA's could be removed from article lists. There WAS a
discussion, but it was NOT supposed to affect affiliate lists of the "Big Six". Apparently, DreamMcQueen is not part of the project. In addition, the NBC, FOX and CBS (oh wait, he stripped the DMAs off the CBS table too) have not been affected yet. This has made me think that he is effectively attempting to claim
article ownership; clearly a violation of "Da Rules". In addition, I am starting to be concerned about his
edits in general, as it seems he is abusing the vandalism marker. In my personal opinion, I think he should begin to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines here. If he does not comply, I think it's safe to declare him a vandal. Further problems with this issue and it's headed for the RFC noticeboard. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (
Fairlyoddparents1234)
12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Guy Macon is following me around in talk pages, where I participate in on topic discussions, and follow my comments with off topic negative comments related to me and to other discussions:
Regards. -- Nenpog ( talk) 07:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it doesn't seem to be staying closed I'll respond instead. I am not involved in this dispute and don't know all of the background. What I do know is what I observed at COIN and on IRC: Nenpog has been consistently pushing his views on the wiki on multiple noticeboards/locations etc, including IRC. On #wikipedia-en IRC for example, related to this dispute, he joined the channel to argue that being a doctor in a hospital that has a CT scanner is a conflict of interest. He also tried to argue beyond what was reasonable about basing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims off an unreliable source as well. The level of reliable sources required for this exceptional claim just don't exist. He appears unable to accept any of the responses or points made against his point and continues on, a case of WP:IDHT. It's also clear the content is just not going to go into the article and the consensus is against it, he should drop the WP:STICK and walk away. Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that before Nenpog accused me of uncivil behavior he accused me (without evidence) of having an undisclosed conflict of interest. I would have ignored that -- if you volunteer at WP:DRN you will get a few false accusations from disputants -- but he also accused another editor who, like me, chooses to reveal his true name and who is an Emergency Room Physician in Canada. That is totally acceptable behavior.
This started as a content dispute on
Talk:X-ray computed tomography where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached
WP:DRN.
He was then blocked for
edit-warring and
tendentious editing.
[25]
[26]
[27]
He then started
Wikipedia:Forum shopping, taking his dispute to:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine,
Talk:Ionizing radiation,
Wikipedia talk:No original research,
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard,
User talk:Elen of the Roads,
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard,
Wikipedia talk:No original research (Second time, in a different section),
At least one IRC channel (I don't follow IRC),
And now he is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.
I have no intention of reporting Nenpog at AN/I or anywhere else, for the simple reason that his behavior is not harming me. I considered ignoring the behavior, but Nenpog has wasted a large amount of other editor's time time in a large number of places, so I decided that I would simply post a short, fact-based explanation of where he has been with this previously each time his forum shopping takes him to a new noticeboard and not comment after that. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I created the
Syria Files article and Lihaas added quickly some tags:
notability,
original research. I added more references easily, it is an event covered in mainstream media (
hundreds of news in Google News). Soon, I was
reverted again by Lihaas and he wrote
this comment in my talkpage. After other users
removed the tags he put in
Syria Files, I
noticed him the changes. He has named my comment as
"nonsense" and deleted it. I don't delete his comments using that summaries, so I prefer he doesn't do it. Regards.
emijrp (
talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sirs,
I've made a donation to You recently because I like Wikipedia project very much.
You have blocked Russian part of Wikipedia, so I can not use it.
Do You think that it is honestly? Do You think that it is right when someone who asked for your help says You: “I don’t wanna see You anymore and I don’t wanna talk to You anymore because You live in the bad country, but if You want make some donation You are welcome!”
I don’t need those donated money. I hope that it will help You to develop Wikipedia project. I just want to hear an answer to my question.
My e-mail: (Redacted)
Best regards,
Alex
Users involved
Articles/pages/diffs involved
Description
(Please note: The story is actually long. I admit that I should've gone here earlier but I'm just going to get to the main points. The users involved(including myself) will post the other parts, diffs and other articles involved later when we all have time.)
This began when I nominated the Ell & Nikki article for deletion by mistake because the AfD didn't become the discussion I planned. I gave several points but got very little replies or input from users other than being told about WP:Notability guidelines. They didn't really comment much about the I point made but instead focused on posting about why the article shouldn't be deleted. After the discussion was closed prematurely due to a snowball keep I was thinking of asking the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open it with the hopes of getting other Wikiproject users involved but it was rejected . I figured that if I just ask a question regarding my point rather than re-opening the AfD I would get the answer that I am looking for . However I started to panic when these two users (BabbaQ and CT Cooper) followed me here. I later discovered that BabbaQ has been notifying Wesley Mouse about my activities and questioning my intents. This is when it became a big problem. I got extremely worried about this so I left a note on this page . But their replies gave me the feeling that they were ganging up on me. I made replies that could've have violated several policies and guidelines. I think this was because I've never been in a position before where I've been completely misunderstood and this really hurt me and made me feel frustrated. In particular, Wesley Mouse mentions that I was being negative in the AfD. Something that I completely disagreed with and it really hurt me when that user told me this. I later decided to drop the argument because it was just going nowhere. This is what I just think.
After some users suggested that I should do a merger here and I took this suggestion to the talk page of the article in question more arguments erupted. It ended when Wesley Mouse gave me a kindly written letter on my talk page asking me to put my merger proposal on hold for now . I respected his letter so I agreed. I decided to move on, editing other articles, and going through several guidelines and policies here in Wikipedia so that I could handle this problem more easily in the future. During the course of that time I still had doubts and I asked for Editor's assistance if whether or not it is safe to propose a merger here Just yesterday, they(BabbaQ, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) managed to find me there. I went through their talk pages and once again suspicions about my intents have been aroused. I'm not sure how they managed to find the page but my only guess is that wthey've got my talk page on their watch list and recently a user left a comment which may have notified them of my recent activities and went through my contributions to check on what I am up to. Then notified each other of my page.
Certain points that I am failing to understand with these users?
Why do I disagree with these points?
Main point
I am feeling really scared right now. I feel like my experience here in Wikipedia will never be the same again after my encounter with these users because I am constantly being followed and my contributions are being taken out of context. I am also worried that they will report me and get my account banned in Wikipedia which I do not wish to happen. Can someone please help us get into an understanding? Thanks Bleubeatle ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I would like to know how we can be accused of having "uncivil intents", when the accuser kept on telling people who disagreed with their opinions, to "leave conversations" such as 1, 2, and 3, are just a few examples of such remarks. The accuser also admitted to being uncivil himself towards BabbaQ, which can be seen in this diff, and in the same comment he took other's comments entirely out of context. In this diff Bleubeatle made false accusations about myself, in saying I had informed Bleubeatle that BabbaQ wanted to "fight". I had never said such remarks, and fail to comprehend how Bleubeatle came to the conclusion that I had made such a statement. But that very same diff, also shows one of the numerous occasions that the user has redacted their own comments shortly after someone had responded to his original comments, thus making it look that the responders where making no sense in their remarks. What would possess a user to do that, unless there were hidden intentions? Nevertheless, everyone (as far as I am aware) assumed good faith in Bleu's unknown reasons for redactions.
I find the fact that some people are being accused of "stalking", when this has never been the case. As I am the main editor of the Project newsletter, I have every member on my watchlist, so that I can make sure the EdwardsBot had delivered the newsletter to everyone without any technical glitches. Is this the wrong thing to do? Also, Bleubeatle keeps on stating that everyone questioned his intentions to have an article deleted, and that he never had any such inclinations to have an article deleted to begin with. If that be the case, then why would someone with no intent to have anything deleted, proceed with a nomination of deletion? Surely that is evidential enough to show that every action and comment being posted in regards to the deletion was premeditated with intent.
Then we come to the points that Bleu has raised in bullet-points above. Every single one of those points where originally asked in the AfD, and everyone who voted to keep, explained to Bleu that he had misunderstood the guidance on WP:BIO1E, informing him that those guidelines where for events and not living persons. The same people also pointed out that WP:BLP1E would be the correct guidance to look into. Providing the correct page link was an act of goodwill, and in the assumption that Bleu was unaware of that page. However, following the snowball closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki, Bluebeatle went on what can only be described as a canvassing exercise posting the same questions and directly/inadvertently naming users on talk pages Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), Talk:Ell & Nikki, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and more recently Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests; also accusing an editor of barnstar misuse in regards to the AfD debate. Blatantly going around various pages casting false accusations about other editors is by far more uncivil, and from reading the original comment before the user redacted their own words, again, then it is no wonder that people would start to have suspicions about why someone who is generally quiet and reserved, would start to behave in such a condescending manner. Anyhow, I have clearly written a lengthy response here as it is, so I shall pause for now, and am willing to answer any further questions in due course. Wesley ☀ Mouse
I am also somewhat frustrated that this has been dug-up yet again, since I have a lot better things to do with my time. I am however happy to answer questions, and what I meant by "some kind of mutual agreement" was closing comments made on the discussion at WT:EURO, in which Bleubeatle stated amidst some problematic comments, that he wouldn't reply any more, in which I interpreted to mean that he was going to drop the issue, for which I was happy to do. Bleubeatle however instead starting more threads on the subject, sometimes in inappropriate places such as WT:ATA, and usually containing at least some kind of questionable statement about what other editors had done or said.
What Bleubeatle needs to understand is that when you propose something and consensus doesn't go your way, you let the issue die and move on, even if you are not personally satisfied with the reasoning - you don't forum shop by starting lots more threads until you get the answer you want. Starting one or at most two more threads on a subject might be defensible depending on the circumstances, but the level to which Bleubeatle took it was way past what was acceptable.
There is clearly a lot of emotion in the above comments by Bleubeatle, which I see as unjustified for the situation he actually faced - for instance nobody has called for him to be banned before now. As I've said before, his earlier comments stating "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" do come back to haunt him here. Bleubeatle needs to learn that editing a collaborative project such as this does involve receiving criticism and dealing with disagreement, and he needs to learn to handle such events appropriately, and not respond with extreme emotion or unjustified allegations about "questioning my intent" or the like, which can and did in this case, make things worse. Finally, and most importantly of all, Bleubeatle needs to realize that his actions have consequences. It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project, and that such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is not going to be put-up with indefinitely. I have repeatedly tried to explain to Bleubeatle where he is going wrong, but such efforts have failed so far. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Before I reply to any details regarding the posts above me here I just want to start off my saying that the user I found the most difficult to communicate with was BabbaQ. I first encountered this user when I first
proposed the article for deletion. The user objected and told me about it on my
talk page. Later on after the AfD ended and while I was asking for the non-admin user who closed it for re-opening, the user began following on this page
page.
I have also noticed that for most of the time, the user has always been constantly the other two users(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) of my actions on each other's talk pages as seen on some of these diffs:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]. From my observations, this may explain why the other two users have followed me around Wikipedia ever since. During the discussion that I opened on this
page, the user became disinterested and rude when after many agreed that the article should be merged instead. A user noticed this
behavior. I also noticed it on the article's talk page when I tried to converge with the user
here. The user even tells me that "its a fight you are unlikely to win unfortunately" and "are you sure you are not looking for proof?. Im out of this discussion. Its over and done.". The user clearly opposes anything being done on the article whether it is deleting or merging and doesn't want anymore or anyone to discuss about it in the future. That kind of behavior should stop because other users may find this rude and will not lead to a proper discussion. From my observation, the user seems to be trying to gather support to prevent the inevitable from happening and that is by arousing suspicions about my contributions on these two users'(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) talk pages. The user needs to realize that
is not a battleground and that
winning is not everything. Also I believe that the user has rejected all signs of neutrality and peace as shown on these diffs:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4] and
[5].
Bleubeatle (
talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I will probably give another statement like this paragraph for the other two users later on if it is needed. Just reading through some of the paragraphs above, I have to tell you all that I already understand most the things that you've said. What needs to change is your approach and your posts towards users like myself. You may think that you could be doing something right but sometimes it can hurt people as well. No one in Wikipedia enjoys being bossed around. I'm pretty sure neither of you do. Sometimes you need to take a break and have a good look at your own posts. You should be more careful with what you write and understand that not everyone communicates the same way you do. Besides this is the internet. Bleubeatle ( talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I initially said 4 months, as that would bring us to November, by which time people will be too busy stressing out over Christmas preparations to be bothered about stressing over this too. Wesley Mouse 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
6 months sounds good to me. And nobody mentioned dispute resolution in this very thread. Disruption yes, but dispute no. Going down DR before a merger would basically be failing points 2 and 3 of the proposal. And why would we need to revisit the past 6 months from now by opening DR? The whole point of the proposal is to just drop everything, and start a clean slate. Wesley Mouse 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, do we have an agreement? Once this is confirmed, the terms can be implemented. CT Cooper · talk 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am a longterm WQA volunteer (over 1000 edits) who was asked to comment by Wesley Mouse. Historically I don't comment unless I have time to thoroughly review all contributions. While I've spent some time the past fews reviewing the interaction history here, I can't claim I've reviewed everything.
My overall impression is everyone has been acting in good faith and without any malicious intent; it's simply that disagreement leads to frustration which can lead to ill considered words. No individual editor is jumping out as significantly more at fault than anyone else.
This alert is actually fairly extraordinary because it is very rare that editors who have gotten to the point where they get to WQA show the maturity and grace to work through to a mutually agreeable solution as well as I'm observing here; that's a compliment to all the involved parties. In general I'm wary that elaborate interaction proposals are hard to maintain in practice; however, since you're all agreeable to the concept I encourage you to proceed as you are.
My two pieces of advice are:
So I apologize in advance if I have not entered all of the above information correctly. I have not attempted a dispute resolution before. Concerning user America69 I have been unable to contact this person as they are "Semi-Retired" and I don't see how to type on his page to notify them. My issue is concerning the Florida Gubernational Election 2014 page. I originally edited it to add myself as an independent to the page. America69 removed my edit and the current comment he posted as his reason is "(→Potential: this is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote) (undo)"
Yes I do realize I added an Independent category to this page and added myself to it. I believe the entry was very neutral. I did not hype myself in this edit nor did I add any links to the page. Independent voters do exist as do independents running. I have produced over 6 hours of Youtube videos discussing candidacy issues for Florida Governor. Based on the Wiki guidelines if I can not add myself as an independent and people that know me can not add me as an independent then how can anyone ever be added as an independent/democrat/republican? By definition anyone adding anyone else to the page 'knows them.' So at what point then is an Independent candidate considered to be a valid candidate? Do they have to spend $10,000 on tv ads? $100,000? $1 million dollars? I personally feel it is a sad day when democracy in America is determined by whom can buy elections which is what this seems to be coming down to especially with America69 comment in his edits and his threats to have my account squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnblumberg ( talk • contribs)
As some here might know, WLU has been
wikihounding me for over a year, even including false accusations to this board
[32]. However, that is not the current reason I'm asking for help. I've long been watching wikiproject medicine, and noticed a post involving the Dissociative Identity Disorder article. There, WLU was making an ad hominen attack against another editor, pointing out her self-disclosed DID as a reason to revert her
[33]. WLU's victim had my sympathy, since he had used many of the same tactics against me. I spoke up to defend her, and WLU's friend whatamidoing echoed WLU's attack, and added a claim about my sexuality as a reason to ignore me, arguing that people with conditions were apt to "accidentally misread sources."
[34] I pointed out that these were
ad hominen attacks, a violation of Wikipedia policy. WLU deleted both of my comments
[35].
WLU has also edit warred to force his version of the DID article [36] [37] [38], placing a 3RR warning on Tylas' user page [39]. WLU was at 3RR, Tylas was not. Tylas lost initiative in the edit war when she discussed the deceptive 3RR warning instead of reverting.
WLU's victim has invested a lot of time into the DID article in good faith. I would hate to see her driven off. However, there is little that I can do: I'll be out of town this weekend and if I do anything, WLU and friends will doubtlessly accuse me of wikihounding. BitterGrey ( talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WLU works to drive off editors that do not agree with him. He has stalked me off WP, looking for anything he could find to get me off the DID page. He swore at me and attacked me as my introduction to the DID page. So much for a warm welcome to new editors. Given his list of subjects of interest that he displays on his page, his looking for me off WP scares me since I do have 5 children. I was ran off a couple of times now by WLU, but keep coming back in hopes that the rest of WP is not what editor WLU makes it for many of us - a place where even on a medical article, he and his extreme POV dominate. ~ty ( talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But IRWolfie, would it be civil of me to disregard all of your input, including all that you have written above, merely because you were Irish? ...And to persistently bring up your Irishness anywhere we had a debate, and anywhere you debated with one of my friends, as a reason why your input was worthless and why everyone else should ignore any input you might offer? Cracks about my sexuality are being made, made repeatedly, and being given in multiple places across Wikipedia as a reason why my input about any topic should be disregarded. Since you took it upon yourself to tell everyone else who might otherwise have looked into this that no incivility is occurring, I'd like to get a better idea of what you consider uncivil. A yes or no is all I ask. (Well, two yes-or-nos actually. There is also the question about deleting other's talk comments, which also did occur [47]. )
Oh, and the trick of tagging open issues closed to avoid discussion is getting old [48] [49]. Didn't work there either. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently BScMScMD Thinks it's okay to refer to people as "morons" if they make a typo on a talk page. I and MrBoire have been involved with the user, and this seems to be retaliation for having been told that they were showing their ignorance, the state of being uninformed, about a subject. Perhaps there is a deficiency in language, as demonstrated by the user's comments, and this is at the root of the retribution. It is of note that in the contributors native language, the term fr:Ignorance is also used to describe a person who "does not know."-- Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, there was absolutely no typo on my user page. The message was strictly bitter and obviously did not have its place on a Wikipedia talk page. Having that said, before summarizing an issue to other editors, you, UnQuébécois, should be sure to include real facts, not bits and pieces of misleading information. -- BScMScMD ( talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I strongly believe you have the "it" disease! -- BScMScMD ( talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User is still at it, here, with their "nit picking" on talk pages. It's very frustrating behavior, and from the comments left on their own talk page, is On purpose.-- Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I complained to AndyTheGrump that "remove image and explain why)" did not describe http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Penis&action=history. I also complained that he had written "I would take the suggestions of this 'contributor' more seriously were it not for their recent contribution history. [51] Might I suggest that you'd make a better case if you didn't make a habit of spamming pages with pictures of people urinating?". This contradicts the idea of assessing edits, not editors. It is also wrong, as i had only added photographs of a man and a woman urinating to Urination and Talk:Urination, and a photograph of a penis urinating to Talk:Penis. Please try to be more accurate in the future." He wrote "If you don't like my comment, fine. Report it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or wherever." Subsequently in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3APhallus&diff=503393294&oldid=503391356 he wrote " I'd ask 93.96.148.42 to stop being such a dickhead. " and "l. If 93.96.148.42 wishes for policy to be revised to enable off-topic pictures of human genitalia to be added to whatever article he/she wants, on the basis that it is supposedly 'censorship' to do otherwise, this isn't the place to do it". I am not happy at this abuse. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Due to a disagreement with
a reversion
a reversion, done by myself at
Fort Hood Shooting an Administrator threatened a reduction of editing privilege against myself and acted in, what I perceive as, an uncivil manor. I pointed this out to the administrator, which was meet of a response of, as I perceive, as continued incivility. After continued correspondence the administrator followed up with an additional threat and a threat to wikihound myself.
I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to bring up an administrator's actions towards regular editors, however I feel that the final posting of the editor warranted additional review.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am writing this complaint about AndytheGrump. In an ongoing debate at the linked article, I have been subjected to repeated and baseless accusations of being a meat/sockpuppet, a throwaway account, an SPA as well as other incivil comments. I have asked him to stop making these claims, yet he refuses to, and continues to behave in an insulting and degrading way.
I ask you to note his previous block, as well as repeated warnings and notes on his talkpage related to his attitude, and the above discussion on this very page. Because of these factors, I do not believe this behaviour will stop without this case being filed, his response to the message formally asking him to stop is proof enough that he has no qualms with incivility, even after being repeatedly told. Iamthemuffinman ( talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am currently compiling the rest which is difficult as I have to sift through endless disgusting comments you have made to find the ones solely related to me, which in addition to the opening comments from the lovely Andy, should build a very valid case for assistance. Iamthemuffinman ( talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) - in response to my answer to his lop sided question.
I have to ask, because it is notable that several of those taking part seem intent on dragging discussions off-topic at every opportunity. I'd cite the section above as an obvious example, but it isn't the only one. Naturally, it isn't up to one individual or another to decide the flow of discussion, but comments like "I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" from what is almost certainly a throw-away account from a 'new' contributor (who seems very familiar with inner the workings of Wikipedia) appear to me to be intentionally phrased in such a way to distract from discussion of the underlying issues. If this is the case, it appears that ANI may not be the best venue for this discussion, and it might best be continued elsewhere. Clearly, a RfC/U on AnkhMorpork might be a starting point, but I feel we need to address the broader issues in some way too - as Zero suggested above, an extension of 1RR into the subject matter here might make sense, for a start. I think more needs to be done though, to find a way to systemically deal with coordinated POV-pushing and gaming the system in the ways evident in this thread and in relation to the articles concerned. Exactly where and how this should proceed I'm unsure - maybe others (amongst those that actually wish to see an honest and reputable Wikipedia) can offer suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - A section he created, where an unfounded accusation is made.
This is an indicator of the major problem we have with Andy. This is limited to the confrontation between me and him solely, however, a simple look through his history of contributions will reveal a long running campaign of incivility for which he was blocked. His continuing of the incivil behavour on this page is a more justification for this thread. Iamthemuffinman ( talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy the Grump is the most reliable editor in terms of maintaining our BLP policy, and so protecting Wikipedia and living persons.
Everything else is secondary. I would ask that persons stop treating Andy without the respect he deserves. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It is kind of funny to me to see an appeal to respect one editor (who without question deserves respect for his positive contributions), but at the expense of disrespect for another editor. It is a two-way street guys. You don't get a pass on civility for your good works, you get civility and patience, and you probably get more patience if you're easier to get along with, but in no way does that entitle you to a pass. Andy, as much as you are grumpy, you are helpful. But the problem is bigger than just you. There are a lot of people who think it is ok to be uncivil as long as the final product is good looking. But our policy, our PILLAR, says otherwise. It says you don't get to have one and not the other. It says you MUST HAVE BOTH. I'm sure there are plenty of fine academic journals, professors, scientists, who get away with treating other people like shit all day long and those guys get a pass because they perform at a high level. While that is one reasonable model, it is not how Wikipedia is designed to work. There is no excuse for defending a culture of asshole-ism. So either we behave like civilized gents, or we find a new hobby. -- Avanu ( talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I actually have far less problem with your use of uncivil language than I have with those here who claim that this is OK because the rules don't apply to you. I would note that you never claimed that the rules don't apply to you. I consider your actual behavior to be rather minor, worthy of a stern "Tsk, Tsk, please don't do that" and nothing more. My issue is with the other editors who have claimed that it is OK for you to be uncivil if your target was disruptive (which he was) or because you do good work here (which you do). That's just wrong. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen at Talk:Nicosia over:
See Talk:Nicosia#More thoughts on status in infobox generally; and, specifically, this comment by E4024, and this subsequent exchange involving Dr.K., Athenean, and myself, in which I am being chided for my perceived inaction.
In retrospect, I should probably have been more sensitive to E4024's original comment and should have asked him to retract it right away, rather than letting it pass. However, I believe the general issues I've listed above should still be addressed by uninvolved outsiders. — Rich wales 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This issue has been brought up on two other notice boards - Admin incidents and Dispute resolution - I am posting this at the advice of a user on the former. The issue I'd like to address here is Ronnie's propensity for calling good faith edits vandalism and accusing users of trolling or slander (I don't know if that qualifies for WP:Legal Threat) - here are two examples of his conduct - 1, 2. You can also see the numerous cautions, warnings and bits of guidance he's received (and removed) on his talk page, as well as a comment and reciprocatetive warning he left on my userpage. The user is incredibly difficult to communicate with and seems to ignore the advice, guidance and cautioning of every single user that interacts with him. It seems he's lost interest in the article in question for the time being (he spends the vast majority of his time on talk pages) but I'd like to initiate this discussion none the less. -- Williamsburgland ( talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit troubling coming from an Administrator. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Likes to use expletives and uncivilised terms in his edit summaries etc. An example where he tells someone to "FUCK OFF". Fanzine999 ( talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
After a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
request on Thomas Sowell, the result came against removing certain material on the page.
Despite this, and despite me explicitly saying this on the talk page ( diff)( diff), the material has been removed on essentially no grounds.
Here is Thargor Orlando's reasoning for the removal:
( diff)
As far as I can tell the next step is to have arbitration but I'm not sure if it requires sanctions if someone violates dispute resolution without going into arbitration. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I should add that Thargor has been adding discussions on my page which are clearly done to detract from this process. Specifically: "There's no "Wikiquette" problem, obviously, just a content dispute that needs solving. If you're uninterested in continuing the discussion there, say so and those of us who are trying to improve the article will do so." ( diff diff)
I summarized the problem in my last response ( diff) CartoonDiablo ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Need outside advice about an on-going issue of
WP:OWNERSHIP and
WP:CIVIL. IMO,
User:DocKino is bullying his way around
the article's talk page and discouraging article improvement. Is this how wikipedia is supposed to work? ~
GabeMc
(talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
After a minor disagreement over an ENGVAR matter, the user Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs) has subsequently decided to:
Apart from the WP:NPAbreach, there are also worrying signs of a WP:HOUNDing process and a propensity to edit war over inaccuracies. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The user Widescreen has been clearly violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:DISENGAGE ( diff, diff) and despite being warned about it ( diff) has not apologized and generally continues to do it ( diff). CartoonDiablo ( talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive NPOV user, repeatedly ignoring links and discussions. is the second time the user has decided to leave insults rather than discussion. Despite being asked [2] to not. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done) 09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I just redirected that shortcut for WP:DNFTT to the WP:Civility page. Actually, I think it needs to be MfD'd or PROD'd but it is an inappropriate shortcut in terms of civility. --
Avanu (
talk) 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
While much of this dispute seems to be inflamed by the apparent language barrier (Guage00 seems to have limited facility with English), there is an ongoing discussion about the range of years covered by the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a classical Chinese work. Gauge00 is convinced that the beginning year in the article, AD 184, is incorrect, and to support his position he has been arguing that the book fails to mention certain events prior to 189 that it "should contain" ( [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Three different editors (myself included) have pointed out that this is an illogical argument( [10], [11], [12]), constitutes original research ( [13]), and that wikipedia operates by consesus (see previous diff [14]). Gauge00's response, despite repeatedly admitting that he has not read the source text( [15], [16],& others), has been to assert that the particular editor who made the date change in the first place must have been at fault because a previous version said something else ( [17], [18]), that his interlocutor's are "incompetant" ( [19], [20]) and "stubborn" ( [21]), and has also focused on his belief that I'm advocating the consensus position because he believes I'm Chinese ( [22] -- for the record, " siafu" is a swahili word). I tried to remind him to WP:NPA twice( [23], [24]), but he made no acknowledgement, and continues to argue on the same lines. My personal belief is that this dispute is being fueled both by a lack of familiarity with wikiquette, and a failure in communication due to Gauge00's lack of fluency with the English language, but I honestly don't know how to proceed here. The dispute has not really risen to the level of an edit war, as yet, but could, and I'm hoping that outside help could resolve the situation better than I and others have been (not) able to thus far, and especially some advice on how to deal with editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and with limited command of English would be appreciated. siafu ( talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
On the discussion regarding deletion of a page he created ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms), Guage00 has been extremely hostile, in the discussion and in notes to his edits of the page referring to other editors as "dogs", "dusgusting morons", and "shits". Snuge purveyor ( talk) 08:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nobody involved has any intention of chastising Gauge00 for his faulty English, but that cannot be used as an excuse for attacking other editors and flaunting self-perceived authority he does not have any right to. Hurling abuse at other editors should not need a wiki page; it's quite simply polite, in any respect, to refrain from insulting others. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there really no assistance available here? Was this a complete waste of time? siafu ( talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Gauge00 today attacked an IP editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms, where the IP suggested an AfD be created to remove the List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which he created WP:POINT to prove a point from ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms. I have nominated the article for deletion as the IP requested, but Gauge00's continued abuse MUST be dealt with; there is no reason why well-intentioned editors must suffer his self-aggrandising insults. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms for further details. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm just dropping by this page because I want to know more about how to use this forum in the future. I didn't really read through all the diffs but I did get the chance to read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I think that users from both sides should review Wikipedia:Etiquette. Even if a user's post is hurtful it might be best to ignore it and kindly tell the user what you feel without commenting about their behavior or applying the policy guidelines because they may interpret it as an insult and could retaliate by insulting you guys again. If you guys have already done this then I apologize for not reading all the diffs in detail. I'm afraid that your last option should be to going to WP:ANI if no other administrator or editor responds to your posts here. 119.224.27.62 ( talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Very simple. I asked a
good faith question on the talk page for
MOS:FILM. I received a few replies that disagreed with my inquiry but were not directed toward me, but DarkWarriorblake
said I was naive to think that way. I asked
for him/her to redact the comment, but I received a
cold reply and not even an apology. This type of behavior is contrary to
WP:CIVIL as the comment was directed toward me on not on the content of the discussion, as he/she clearly said.."It is naive to think that...", meaning I was naive to think these things. I tried to ask for a redaction but was rebuffed with more incivility, by saying "How you translated that into a personal attack and inferred information suppression is some Back to the Future style time-travel reality warping chicanery."--
JOJ
Hutton 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
My advice is to just drop it and move on. Ignore the user if possible. Just a suggestion in the future if a similar incident is applied by another user towards you, just ask them politely who was the user referring to as "naive" in a short statement. I don't think that there is any need to tell them that you took it as a personal attack such as "I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal?....Is that an attack of some sort?". Some users may think that you're making direct accusations or taking their posts out of context and they may feel intimidated so they could retaliate and insult you back to defend themselves because they don't appreciate being misunderstood. I know this wasn't your intent though and I understand what you really meant but remember that when you're online some people might interpret other people's words differently. I'm pretty sure DWB didn't mean to insult you either and may not be aware that others could find his/her own post as uncivil. Remember to follow the Dealing with incivility #4: Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm. I hope that my suggestion helps :-) 119.224.27.62 ( talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
A while back, Areaseven and I had some minor disagreements over some article content (mainly images), a wrong button hit, and a patronizing comment he made towards me. Early last month, I discovered that Areaseven had retained a comment I made on his talk page months ago where I used wording that he construed as racist (my response to the previous diff). When I discovered this fact (despite the fact that he removes everything else that ever makes it onto his talk page), and also had added commentary. As he had refactored my original post, I removed his comment along with a harsh word, but then left a comment unrelated to that issue. He then reverted me. In any attempt I made to explain myself, Areaseven ignored it and continued to fail to assume any sort of good faith on my part. After a long and heated discussion with him, he removed everything I said from his page and I avoided dealing with him after leaving this final message where I attempted to end the dispute, which he reverted 2 minutes after I pressed save. The other day, I attempted to extend an olive branch, once more, and request that Areaseven write some content before another less experienced editor did. After refusing, Areaseven proceeded to add back every discussion we had. My inquiry into this behavior was ignored and Areaseven instead added his own commentary to year old occurences. Areaseven continues to fail to assume any good faith on my part, whether it be from accidentally hitting the "rollback (vandal)" link instead of the "undo" link, from an unintentional combination of words that he has latched onto as being a racist remark, or feeling referring to an action of multiple image uploads as "overboard" is a slight against him. I understand that he has some personal choice over its content, but at this point he is just being spiteful in keeping his consistent misconstrued opinions over what I've said to him. I will admit that conversations between myself and Areaseven delved into incivility, but there is no reason he should enshrining the discussions he and I have had to mock me. Also I've posted here, because the last time I posted to WP:ANI regarding a similar situation, I was told it was not meant for that board. If I'm incorrect, again, please move this and tell me where it's gone to.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello there. I am currently involved in a dispute with
User:DreamMcQueen. I have added a link to
CBS Television Stations to
List of CBS television affiliates (table) after where it says "This list does not include independent stations or stations affiliated with The CW". I am not sure why, but he decided to remove it, citing
redundancy as an explanation. What makes me concerned is the fact that he has not yet removed such links from
List of NBC television affiliates (table) (for Telemundo
O&Os) and
List of Fox television affiliates (table) (for MyNetworkTV O&Os), all three which I have added. To make matters worse, he sometimes deliberately leaves the
edit summary field blank. I have attempted to revert my edits until I decided to give up and report this, on account of the policy
WP:3RR. Also, for
List of ABC television affiliates (table), he has been repeatedly removing the
designated market area from the O&O list, even though I still kept it in alphabetical order (see edit history). He reverts my edit. I revert back again. I recently had the article put on a one-week edit lock. What concerns me is that there would be consensus at
the TV station WikiProject before the DMA's could be removed from article lists. There WAS a
discussion, but it was NOT supposed to affect affiliate lists of the "Big Six". Apparently, DreamMcQueen is not part of the project. In addition, the NBC, FOX and CBS (oh wait, he stripped the DMAs off the CBS table too) have not been affected yet. This has made me think that he is effectively attempting to claim
article ownership; clearly a violation of "Da Rules". In addition, I am starting to be concerned about his
edits in general, as it seems he is abusing the vandalism marker. In my personal opinion, I think he should begin to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines here. If he does not comply, I think it's safe to declare him a vandal. Further problems with this issue and it's headed for the RFC noticeboard. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (
Fairlyoddparents1234)
12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Guy Macon is following me around in talk pages, where I participate in on topic discussions, and follow my comments with off topic negative comments related to me and to other discussions:
Regards. -- Nenpog ( talk) 07:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it doesn't seem to be staying closed I'll respond instead. I am not involved in this dispute and don't know all of the background. What I do know is what I observed at COIN and on IRC: Nenpog has been consistently pushing his views on the wiki on multiple noticeboards/locations etc, including IRC. On #wikipedia-en IRC for example, related to this dispute, he joined the channel to argue that being a doctor in a hospital that has a CT scanner is a conflict of interest. He also tried to argue beyond what was reasonable about basing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims off an unreliable source as well. The level of reliable sources required for this exceptional claim just don't exist. He appears unable to accept any of the responses or points made against his point and continues on, a case of WP:IDHT. It's also clear the content is just not going to go into the article and the consensus is against it, he should drop the WP:STICK and walk away. Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that before Nenpog accused me of uncivil behavior he accused me (without evidence) of having an undisclosed conflict of interest. I would have ignored that -- if you volunteer at WP:DRN you will get a few false accusations from disputants -- but he also accused another editor who, like me, chooses to reveal his true name and who is an Emergency Room Physician in Canada. That is totally acceptable behavior.
This started as a content dispute on
Talk:X-ray computed tomography where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached
WP:DRN.
He was then blocked for
edit-warring and
tendentious editing.
[25]
[26]
[27]
He then started
Wikipedia:Forum shopping, taking his dispute to:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine,
Talk:Ionizing radiation,
Wikipedia talk:No original research,
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard,
User talk:Elen of the Roads,
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard,
Wikipedia talk:No original research (Second time, in a different section),
At least one IRC channel (I don't follow IRC),
And now he is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.
I have no intention of reporting Nenpog at AN/I or anywhere else, for the simple reason that his behavior is not harming me. I considered ignoring the behavior, but Nenpog has wasted a large amount of other editor's time time in a large number of places, so I decided that I would simply post a short, fact-based explanation of where he has been with this previously each time his forum shopping takes him to a new noticeboard and not comment after that. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I created the
Syria Files article and Lihaas added quickly some tags:
notability,
original research. I added more references easily, it is an event covered in mainstream media (
hundreds of news in Google News). Soon, I was
reverted again by Lihaas and he wrote
this comment in my talkpage. After other users
removed the tags he put in
Syria Files, I
noticed him the changes. He has named my comment as
"nonsense" and deleted it. I don't delete his comments using that summaries, so I prefer he doesn't do it. Regards.
emijrp (
talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sirs,
I've made a donation to You recently because I like Wikipedia project very much.
You have blocked Russian part of Wikipedia, so I can not use it.
Do You think that it is honestly? Do You think that it is right when someone who asked for your help says You: “I don’t wanna see You anymore and I don’t wanna talk to You anymore because You live in the bad country, but if You want make some donation You are welcome!”
I don’t need those donated money. I hope that it will help You to develop Wikipedia project. I just want to hear an answer to my question.
My e-mail: (Redacted)
Best regards,
Alex
Users involved
Articles/pages/diffs involved
Description
(Please note: The story is actually long. I admit that I should've gone here earlier but I'm just going to get to the main points. The users involved(including myself) will post the other parts, diffs and other articles involved later when we all have time.)
This began when I nominated the Ell & Nikki article for deletion by mistake because the AfD didn't become the discussion I planned. I gave several points but got very little replies or input from users other than being told about WP:Notability guidelines. They didn't really comment much about the I point made but instead focused on posting about why the article shouldn't be deleted. After the discussion was closed prematurely due to a snowball keep I was thinking of asking the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open it with the hopes of getting other Wikiproject users involved but it was rejected . I figured that if I just ask a question regarding my point rather than re-opening the AfD I would get the answer that I am looking for . However I started to panic when these two users (BabbaQ and CT Cooper) followed me here. I later discovered that BabbaQ has been notifying Wesley Mouse about my activities and questioning my intents. This is when it became a big problem. I got extremely worried about this so I left a note on this page . But their replies gave me the feeling that they were ganging up on me. I made replies that could've have violated several policies and guidelines. I think this was because I've never been in a position before where I've been completely misunderstood and this really hurt me and made me feel frustrated. In particular, Wesley Mouse mentions that I was being negative in the AfD. Something that I completely disagreed with and it really hurt me when that user told me this. I later decided to drop the argument because it was just going nowhere. This is what I just think.
After some users suggested that I should do a merger here and I took this suggestion to the talk page of the article in question more arguments erupted. It ended when Wesley Mouse gave me a kindly written letter on my talk page asking me to put my merger proposal on hold for now . I respected his letter so I agreed. I decided to move on, editing other articles, and going through several guidelines and policies here in Wikipedia so that I could handle this problem more easily in the future. During the course of that time I still had doubts and I asked for Editor's assistance if whether or not it is safe to propose a merger here Just yesterday, they(BabbaQ, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) managed to find me there. I went through their talk pages and once again suspicions about my intents have been aroused. I'm not sure how they managed to find the page but my only guess is that wthey've got my talk page on their watch list and recently a user left a comment which may have notified them of my recent activities and went through my contributions to check on what I am up to. Then notified each other of my page.
Certain points that I am failing to understand with these users?
Why do I disagree with these points?
Main point
I am feeling really scared right now. I feel like my experience here in Wikipedia will never be the same again after my encounter with these users because I am constantly being followed and my contributions are being taken out of context. I am also worried that they will report me and get my account banned in Wikipedia which I do not wish to happen. Can someone please help us get into an understanding? Thanks Bleubeatle ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I would like to know how we can be accused of having "uncivil intents", when the accuser kept on telling people who disagreed with their opinions, to "leave conversations" such as 1, 2, and 3, are just a few examples of such remarks. The accuser also admitted to being uncivil himself towards BabbaQ, which can be seen in this diff, and in the same comment he took other's comments entirely out of context. In this diff Bleubeatle made false accusations about myself, in saying I had informed Bleubeatle that BabbaQ wanted to "fight". I had never said such remarks, and fail to comprehend how Bleubeatle came to the conclusion that I had made such a statement. But that very same diff, also shows one of the numerous occasions that the user has redacted their own comments shortly after someone had responded to his original comments, thus making it look that the responders where making no sense in their remarks. What would possess a user to do that, unless there were hidden intentions? Nevertheless, everyone (as far as I am aware) assumed good faith in Bleu's unknown reasons for redactions.
I find the fact that some people are being accused of "stalking", when this has never been the case. As I am the main editor of the Project newsletter, I have every member on my watchlist, so that I can make sure the EdwardsBot had delivered the newsletter to everyone without any technical glitches. Is this the wrong thing to do? Also, Bleubeatle keeps on stating that everyone questioned his intentions to have an article deleted, and that he never had any such inclinations to have an article deleted to begin with. If that be the case, then why would someone with no intent to have anything deleted, proceed with a nomination of deletion? Surely that is evidential enough to show that every action and comment being posted in regards to the deletion was premeditated with intent.
Then we come to the points that Bleu has raised in bullet-points above. Every single one of those points where originally asked in the AfD, and everyone who voted to keep, explained to Bleu that he had misunderstood the guidance on WP:BIO1E, informing him that those guidelines where for events and not living persons. The same people also pointed out that WP:BLP1E would be the correct guidance to look into. Providing the correct page link was an act of goodwill, and in the assumption that Bleu was unaware of that page. However, following the snowball closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki, Bluebeatle went on what can only be described as a canvassing exercise posting the same questions and directly/inadvertently naming users on talk pages Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), Talk:Ell & Nikki, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and more recently Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests; also accusing an editor of barnstar misuse in regards to the AfD debate. Blatantly going around various pages casting false accusations about other editors is by far more uncivil, and from reading the original comment before the user redacted their own words, again, then it is no wonder that people would start to have suspicions about why someone who is generally quiet and reserved, would start to behave in such a condescending manner. Anyhow, I have clearly written a lengthy response here as it is, so I shall pause for now, and am willing to answer any further questions in due course. Wesley ☀ Mouse
I am also somewhat frustrated that this has been dug-up yet again, since I have a lot better things to do with my time. I am however happy to answer questions, and what I meant by "some kind of mutual agreement" was closing comments made on the discussion at WT:EURO, in which Bleubeatle stated amidst some problematic comments, that he wouldn't reply any more, in which I interpreted to mean that he was going to drop the issue, for which I was happy to do. Bleubeatle however instead starting more threads on the subject, sometimes in inappropriate places such as WT:ATA, and usually containing at least some kind of questionable statement about what other editors had done or said.
What Bleubeatle needs to understand is that when you propose something and consensus doesn't go your way, you let the issue die and move on, even if you are not personally satisfied with the reasoning - you don't forum shop by starting lots more threads until you get the answer you want. Starting one or at most two more threads on a subject might be defensible depending on the circumstances, but the level to which Bleubeatle took it was way past what was acceptable.
There is clearly a lot of emotion in the above comments by Bleubeatle, which I see as unjustified for the situation he actually faced - for instance nobody has called for him to be banned before now. As I've said before, his earlier comments stating "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" do come back to haunt him here. Bleubeatle needs to learn that editing a collaborative project such as this does involve receiving criticism and dealing with disagreement, and he needs to learn to handle such events appropriately, and not respond with extreme emotion or unjustified allegations about "questioning my intent" or the like, which can and did in this case, make things worse. Finally, and most importantly of all, Bleubeatle needs to realize that his actions have consequences. It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project, and that such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is not going to be put-up with indefinitely. I have repeatedly tried to explain to Bleubeatle where he is going wrong, but such efforts have failed so far. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Before I reply to any details regarding the posts above me here I just want to start off my saying that the user I found the most difficult to communicate with was BabbaQ. I first encountered this user when I first
proposed the article for deletion. The user objected and told me about it on my
talk page. Later on after the AfD ended and while I was asking for the non-admin user who closed it for re-opening, the user began following on this page
page.
I have also noticed that for most of the time, the user has always been constantly the other two users(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) of my actions on each other's talk pages as seen on some of these diffs:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]. From my observations, this may explain why the other two users have followed me around Wikipedia ever since. During the discussion that I opened on this
page, the user became disinterested and rude when after many agreed that the article should be merged instead. A user noticed this
behavior. I also noticed it on the article's talk page when I tried to converge with the user
here. The user even tells me that "its a fight you are unlikely to win unfortunately" and "are you sure you are not looking for proof?. Im out of this discussion. Its over and done.". The user clearly opposes anything being done on the article whether it is deleting or merging and doesn't want anymore or anyone to discuss about it in the future. That kind of behavior should stop because other users may find this rude and will not lead to a proper discussion. From my observation, the user seems to be trying to gather support to prevent the inevitable from happening and that is by arousing suspicions about my contributions on these two users'(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) talk pages. The user needs to realize that
is not a battleground and that
winning is not everything. Also I believe that the user has rejected all signs of neutrality and peace as shown on these diffs:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4] and
[5].
Bleubeatle (
talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I will probably give another statement like this paragraph for the other two users later on if it is needed. Just reading through some of the paragraphs above, I have to tell you all that I already understand most the things that you've said. What needs to change is your approach and your posts towards users like myself. You may think that you could be doing something right but sometimes it can hurt people as well. No one in Wikipedia enjoys being bossed around. I'm pretty sure neither of you do. Sometimes you need to take a break and have a good look at your own posts. You should be more careful with what you write and understand that not everyone communicates the same way you do. Besides this is the internet. Bleubeatle ( talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I initially said 4 months, as that would bring us to November, by which time people will be too busy stressing out over Christmas preparations to be bothered about stressing over this too. Wesley Mouse 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
6 months sounds good to me. And nobody mentioned dispute resolution in this very thread. Disruption yes, but dispute no. Going down DR before a merger would basically be failing points 2 and 3 of the proposal. And why would we need to revisit the past 6 months from now by opening DR? The whole point of the proposal is to just drop everything, and start a clean slate. Wesley Mouse 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, do we have an agreement? Once this is confirmed, the terms can be implemented. CT Cooper · talk 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am a longterm WQA volunteer (over 1000 edits) who was asked to comment by Wesley Mouse. Historically I don't comment unless I have time to thoroughly review all contributions. While I've spent some time the past fews reviewing the interaction history here, I can't claim I've reviewed everything.
My overall impression is everyone has been acting in good faith and without any malicious intent; it's simply that disagreement leads to frustration which can lead to ill considered words. No individual editor is jumping out as significantly more at fault than anyone else.
This alert is actually fairly extraordinary because it is very rare that editors who have gotten to the point where they get to WQA show the maturity and grace to work through to a mutually agreeable solution as well as I'm observing here; that's a compliment to all the involved parties. In general I'm wary that elaborate interaction proposals are hard to maintain in practice; however, since you're all agreeable to the concept I encourage you to proceed as you are.
My two pieces of advice are:
So I apologize in advance if I have not entered all of the above information correctly. I have not attempted a dispute resolution before. Concerning user America69 I have been unable to contact this person as they are "Semi-Retired" and I don't see how to type on his page to notify them. My issue is concerning the Florida Gubernational Election 2014 page. I originally edited it to add myself as an independent to the page. America69 removed my edit and the current comment he posted as his reason is "(→Potential: this is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote) (undo)"
Yes I do realize I added an Independent category to this page and added myself to it. I believe the entry was very neutral. I did not hype myself in this edit nor did I add any links to the page. Independent voters do exist as do independents running. I have produced over 6 hours of Youtube videos discussing candidacy issues for Florida Governor. Based on the Wiki guidelines if I can not add myself as an independent and people that know me can not add me as an independent then how can anyone ever be added as an independent/democrat/republican? By definition anyone adding anyone else to the page 'knows them.' So at what point then is an Independent candidate considered to be a valid candidate? Do they have to spend $10,000 on tv ads? $100,000? $1 million dollars? I personally feel it is a sad day when democracy in America is determined by whom can buy elections which is what this seems to be coming down to especially with America69 comment in his edits and his threats to have my account squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnblumberg ( talk • contribs)
As some here might know, WLU has been
wikihounding me for over a year, even including false accusations to this board
[32]. However, that is not the current reason I'm asking for help. I've long been watching wikiproject medicine, and noticed a post involving the Dissociative Identity Disorder article. There, WLU was making an ad hominen attack against another editor, pointing out her self-disclosed DID as a reason to revert her
[33]. WLU's victim had my sympathy, since he had used many of the same tactics against me. I spoke up to defend her, and WLU's friend whatamidoing echoed WLU's attack, and added a claim about my sexuality as a reason to ignore me, arguing that people with conditions were apt to "accidentally misread sources."
[34] I pointed out that these were
ad hominen attacks, a violation of Wikipedia policy. WLU deleted both of my comments
[35].
WLU has also edit warred to force his version of the DID article [36] [37] [38], placing a 3RR warning on Tylas' user page [39]. WLU was at 3RR, Tylas was not. Tylas lost initiative in the edit war when she discussed the deceptive 3RR warning instead of reverting.
WLU's victim has invested a lot of time into the DID article in good faith. I would hate to see her driven off. However, there is little that I can do: I'll be out of town this weekend and if I do anything, WLU and friends will doubtlessly accuse me of wikihounding. BitterGrey ( talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WLU works to drive off editors that do not agree with him. He has stalked me off WP, looking for anything he could find to get me off the DID page. He swore at me and attacked me as my introduction to the DID page. So much for a warm welcome to new editors. Given his list of subjects of interest that he displays on his page, his looking for me off WP scares me since I do have 5 children. I was ran off a couple of times now by WLU, but keep coming back in hopes that the rest of WP is not what editor WLU makes it for many of us - a place where even on a medical article, he and his extreme POV dominate. ~ty ( talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But IRWolfie, would it be civil of me to disregard all of your input, including all that you have written above, merely because you were Irish? ...And to persistently bring up your Irishness anywhere we had a debate, and anywhere you debated with one of my friends, as a reason why your input was worthless and why everyone else should ignore any input you might offer? Cracks about my sexuality are being made, made repeatedly, and being given in multiple places across Wikipedia as a reason why my input about any topic should be disregarded. Since you took it upon yourself to tell everyone else who might otherwise have looked into this that no incivility is occurring, I'd like to get a better idea of what you consider uncivil. A yes or no is all I ask. (Well, two yes-or-nos actually. There is also the question about deleting other's talk comments, which also did occur [47]. )
Oh, and the trick of tagging open issues closed to avoid discussion is getting old [48] [49]. Didn't work there either. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently BScMScMD Thinks it's okay to refer to people as "morons" if they make a typo on a talk page. I and MrBoire have been involved with the user, and this seems to be retaliation for having been told that they were showing their ignorance, the state of being uninformed, about a subject. Perhaps there is a deficiency in language, as demonstrated by the user's comments, and this is at the root of the retribution. It is of note that in the contributors native language, the term fr:Ignorance is also used to describe a person who "does not know."-- Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, there was absolutely no typo on my user page. The message was strictly bitter and obviously did not have its place on a Wikipedia talk page. Having that said, before summarizing an issue to other editors, you, UnQuébécois, should be sure to include real facts, not bits and pieces of misleading information. -- BScMScMD ( talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I strongly believe you have the "it" disease! -- BScMScMD ( talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User is still at it, here, with their "nit picking" on talk pages. It's very frustrating behavior, and from the comments left on their own talk page, is On purpose.-- Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I complained to AndyTheGrump that "remove image and explain why)" did not describe http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Penis&action=history. I also complained that he had written "I would take the suggestions of this 'contributor' more seriously were it not for their recent contribution history. [51] Might I suggest that you'd make a better case if you didn't make a habit of spamming pages with pictures of people urinating?". This contradicts the idea of assessing edits, not editors. It is also wrong, as i had only added photographs of a man and a woman urinating to Urination and Talk:Urination, and a photograph of a penis urinating to Talk:Penis. Please try to be more accurate in the future." He wrote "If you don't like my comment, fine. Report it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or wherever." Subsequently in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3APhallus&diff=503393294&oldid=503391356 he wrote " I'd ask 93.96.148.42 to stop being such a dickhead. " and "l. If 93.96.148.42 wishes for policy to be revised to enable off-topic pictures of human genitalia to be added to whatever article he/she wants, on the basis that it is supposedly 'censorship' to do otherwise, this isn't the place to do it". I am not happy at this abuse. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Due to a disagreement with
a reversion
a reversion, done by myself at
Fort Hood Shooting an Administrator threatened a reduction of editing privilege against myself and acted in, what I perceive as, an uncivil manor. I pointed this out to the administrator, which was meet of a response of, as I perceive, as continued incivility. After continued correspondence the administrator followed up with an additional threat and a threat to wikihound myself.
I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to bring up an administrator's actions towards regular editors, however I feel that the final posting of the editor warranted additional review.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am writing this complaint about AndytheGrump. In an ongoing debate at the linked article, I have been subjected to repeated and baseless accusations of being a meat/sockpuppet, a throwaway account, an SPA as well as other incivil comments. I have asked him to stop making these claims, yet he refuses to, and continues to behave in an insulting and degrading way.
I ask you to note his previous block, as well as repeated warnings and notes on his talkpage related to his attitude, and the above discussion on this very page. Because of these factors, I do not believe this behaviour will stop without this case being filed, his response to the message formally asking him to stop is proof enough that he has no qualms with incivility, even after being repeatedly told. Iamthemuffinman ( talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am currently compiling the rest which is difficult as I have to sift through endless disgusting comments you have made to find the ones solely related to me, which in addition to the opening comments from the lovely Andy, should build a very valid case for assistance. Iamthemuffinman ( talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) - in response to my answer to his lop sided question.
I have to ask, because it is notable that several of those taking part seem intent on dragging discussions off-topic at every opportunity. I'd cite the section above as an obvious example, but it isn't the only one. Naturally, it isn't up to one individual or another to decide the flow of discussion, but comments like "I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" from what is almost certainly a throw-away account from a 'new' contributor (who seems very familiar with inner the workings of Wikipedia) appear to me to be intentionally phrased in such a way to distract from discussion of the underlying issues. If this is the case, it appears that ANI may not be the best venue for this discussion, and it might best be continued elsewhere. Clearly, a RfC/U on AnkhMorpork might be a starting point, but I feel we need to address the broader issues in some way too - as Zero suggested above, an extension of 1RR into the subject matter here might make sense, for a start. I think more needs to be done though, to find a way to systemically deal with coordinated POV-pushing and gaming the system in the ways evident in this thread and in relation to the articles concerned. Exactly where and how this should proceed I'm unsure - maybe others (amongst those that actually wish to see an honest and reputable Wikipedia) can offer suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - A section he created, where an unfounded accusation is made.
This is an indicator of the major problem we have with Andy. This is limited to the confrontation between me and him solely, however, a simple look through his history of contributions will reveal a long running campaign of incivility for which he was blocked. His continuing of the incivil behavour on this page is a more justification for this thread. Iamthemuffinman ( talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy the Grump is the most reliable editor in terms of maintaining our BLP policy, and so protecting Wikipedia and living persons.
Everything else is secondary. I would ask that persons stop treating Andy without the respect he deserves. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It is kind of funny to me to see an appeal to respect one editor (who without question deserves respect for his positive contributions), but at the expense of disrespect for another editor. It is a two-way street guys. You don't get a pass on civility for your good works, you get civility and patience, and you probably get more patience if you're easier to get along with, but in no way does that entitle you to a pass. Andy, as much as you are grumpy, you are helpful. But the problem is bigger than just you. There are a lot of people who think it is ok to be uncivil as long as the final product is good looking. But our policy, our PILLAR, says otherwise. It says you don't get to have one and not the other. It says you MUST HAVE BOTH. I'm sure there are plenty of fine academic journals, professors, scientists, who get away with treating other people like shit all day long and those guys get a pass because they perform at a high level. While that is one reasonable model, it is not how Wikipedia is designed to work. There is no excuse for defending a culture of asshole-ism. So either we behave like civilized gents, or we find a new hobby. -- Avanu ( talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I actually have far less problem with your use of uncivil language than I have with those here who claim that this is OK because the rules don't apply to you. I would note that you never claimed that the rules don't apply to you. I consider your actual behavior to be rather minor, worthy of a stern "Tsk, Tsk, please don't do that" and nothing more. My issue is with the other editors who have claimed that it is OK for you to be uncivil if your target was disruptive (which he was) or because you do good work here (which you do). That's just wrong. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen at Talk:Nicosia over:
See Talk:Nicosia#More thoughts on status in infobox generally; and, specifically, this comment by E4024, and this subsequent exchange involving Dr.K., Athenean, and myself, in which I am being chided for my perceived inaction.
In retrospect, I should probably have been more sensitive to E4024's original comment and should have asked him to retract it right away, rather than letting it pass. However, I believe the general issues I've listed above should still be addressed by uninvolved outsiders. — Rich wales 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)