This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Gerardw ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Izzedine has made changes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without consensus, then when I question Izzedine about Izzedine's reasons, User labels me as being rude and pejorative. User posted a warning to my page and deleted my warning on user's page. This is not the first time user has deleted warning off user's talk page, see difference at User talk:Izzedine 01:55, 2009 November 27. THough I know Users are permitted to delete comments off their user pages, it still gets in the way of tallying up a user's tendency for losing neutrality. a problem this user clearly suffers from. Please assist. THanks.-- Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, this looks very overblown to me. Your only complaint against Izzedine seems to be that they gave you a {{
uw-joke}} template on your talk page? However, you also gave them a {{
uw-npov}} template, why do you think its less acceptable for Izzedine to template you then it is for you to template them?
I agree that the {{
uw-joke}} template is one that could be very annoying, especially if your edits are made in good faith, but then, the same goes for the {{
uw-npov}}. When you are in a content dispute, the answer is to discuss your concerns with the other party/ies, not to post templates on each others talk pages. The "uw-" templates are generally reserved for vandalism, not for good-faith attempts at article building. Another thing that is generally reserved for vandalism is
WP:AIV, Abie, it wasn't very constructive to report Izzedine there. The first step in dispute resolution is to bring up your concerns with the other editor/s concerned (user warnings don't count as bringing up your concerns).
My advice is this:
Izzedine; I suggest that in future disputes your first action is to politely bring up your concerns with the other editors, try not to use user warning templates.
Abie the Fish Peddler; pretty much the same, I know that it can be extremely aggravating to receive a user warning template that isn't deserved, as I have in the past received such warnings. I suggest that instead of retaliating by posting another warning on the other users talk page you instead gently discuss the issue with them.
To both of you: I suggest that you leave the matter of the warnings behind you, and (if you want to) proceed to resolve the issue on the
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a polite and civil way.
Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho! 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue is resolved. I asked for other editors to give their perspectives. So far one has. And I was able to understand that the photograph Izzedine wanted was the best choice. Though I still think Izzedine is very quick to take things personally. I wish in the future Izzedine will keep the suspicion of ulterior motives out of the discussion. I have also learned that if an editor reports that I have been vandalizing, that doesn't mean that I have been vandalizing and I don't need to freak out. Thanks for your help. -- Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi-
There are many things wrong with the Bob Costas wiki page. Under Occupation it says something inappropriate. And in the explanation of how his career began it says something else inappropriate.
please fix the problem and monitor it so it doesn't continue to be an issue.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.12.190 ( talk) 04:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User Makrand Joshi [1]is personally attacking and harrassing me by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.
It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [2] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [3]
Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [4] He changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [5]
He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [6], here [7], here [8].
I had reported the user for edit warring here, [9] for which he responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and how pathetic and malicious I was.
I request you to tell him to not harass me using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Wireless Fidelity Class One ( talk 11:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not acceptable that Makrand Joshi has the right to personally harrass and hound me off editing.
AzureFury has become increasingly uncivil on the Iraq War talk page. His behavior has resulted in several disputes. An editor came to the talk page and stated their opinion that the article was not neutral. [10] They didn't list any specific reasons as to why they thought this, and this created a small dispute as to whether or not their POV claim was even legitimate. This dispute shortly led to the beginning of uncivil and bad faith comments by AzureFury: [11] [12] The next part, long story short, was me letting them know that they were being uncivil -- and Azure claiming that doing so was a personal attack [13] although they were also confronted by another user about it as well. [14] I feel I civilly and clearly explained myself in an attempt to get them to understand that they were being unreasonable, [15], but their response was unnecessarily hostile. [16] Although I cited wp:civility to them, they ignored my argument and suggestions to read it, instead seemingly taking quotes out of wp:agf and wp:npa to defend their actions.
Not long after, another editor posted a new section on the talk page, raising a question between the usage of the words words "war" and "conflict". [17] AzureFury, despite the multiple clearly given warnings at the top of the page, responded by using the talk page as a forum for his view that the war is illegal. [18] Although I cited wp:TPNO to tell him that his comment was unacceptable for a talk page, and wp:TPO to let him know that it could be removed, [19] he refused to acknowledge his inappropriate comment, using the argument that wp:TPO didn't say anything about expressing opinions [20] (again, I had given him the direct link to the section that spells out inappropriate behavior on a talk page -- wp:TPNO). His refusal to heed the warnings directly led to another, long, drawn out dispute between AzureFury and User:Coldplay Expert, who was also asserting AzureFury's incivility. The argument between the two quickly became a personal political debate, although AzureFury explictly stated that since WP:BITE didn't apply to Coldplay Expert, they refuse to assume good faith and be welcoming (completely disregarding wp:civility). [21] The argument between the two continued until a third party had to step in and archive the entire section [22] and suggest dispute resolution. That section can be seen here. It seems clear that AzureFury, despite multiple warnings, is unfamiliar with wp:civility and talk page behavioral guidelines, and this has resulted in long disputes that disrupt the article and the talk page. I tried to deal with it myself, but they seem uninterested with familiarizing themselves with policy.-- Abusing ( talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
My above statement contains links to several uncivil statements. This does not necessarily mean personal attacks. Coldplay Expert might have also acted uncivilly in the dispute that erupted, but the dispute was a result of AzureFury's failure to stop behaving that way when I first tried to tell him to stop. The problem is AzureFury's ongoing incivility on the talk page that has created several disputes, not just the one most recent dispute that has already been resolved.-- Abusing ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this dispute myself, so I can't comment specifically on this incident. But I will say that I have had previous unpleasant editing experience with AzureFury. I would concur with the comments about general high level of hostility, disrespectful discourse and overall talkpage disruption engendered by his/her edits. I summarize some of my concerns in this edit. I actually unwatchlisted the page concerned due in the main to AF's activities there. Based on my experience, I would certainly urge AF to consider the tone and tenor of his/her talkpage contributions and whether they really productive or in the spirit of a collaborative project. -- Slp1 ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright AzureFury, I'm just going to briefly run through some places where I think you behaved inappropriately, and then offer some thoughts and advice, if thats alright with you. These are not necessarily the only breachs of
WP:CIVIL.
You should remember that: "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;" is considered a breach of
WP:CIVIL. By commenting "Eh, I've fed this troll enough. I'll stop", you provoked cold play by this comment, although the fact that cold play was provoked doesn't excuse his following comments, nor do his following comments excuse your taunt.
Secondly, your repeated assertions that Cold Play hadn't read the article were not particularly helpful in resolving the matter. Although I don't know whether or not cold play did or did not read the article, it was slightly pushing it to keep on asserting as such, regardless or whether he had or not.
Thirdly, your comments at Cold Play regarding his motives for bring up the issue where uncalled for, suggesting that he might only be concerned due to a feeling of patriotism, or that he might be motivated by political opinions, are both borderline
WP:CIVIL concerns.
However, AzureFury, although there are points when you certainly could have behaved far better, I feel that overall, your conduct was keeping in-line with
WP:CIVIL, save for a few specific comments. I think you should however be extremely careful about how you treat other editors in content disputes. Your aim should be to resolve the dispute, not inflame it, every comment you make, it may be worth sitting back and thinking "is this really going to help resolve the matter?" if not, then change the comment. Never lose sight of the goal of these disputes, which is to improve the article. People can get caught up in disputes and try to continue them for their own sake, be careful that you do not. Your taunting of Cold Play is also something worth thinking on, as is your general attitude when conducting these conflicts, remember that the other editor is most likely a good faith editor who genuinely believes that their suggestions will improve the article, please deal with them with a more polite disposition in future. Again, your overall your conduct hasn't been quite so bad as has been made out, however, you can still learn from it and improve. Thanks for your patience in reading this.
Cold Play, although it seems to have been played down here, your conduct wasn't exactly exemplary, and you can definitely improve upon it. AzureFury has been extremely patience and tolerant of your behaviour. Such comments as: "Well congrats you got your wish jerk" and "Your actions at this talk page alone proves that you can be a WP:DICK. Its plain and simple" aren't constructive, they are not polite and they most certainly don't help to resolve the dispute. I understand that you are fairly new to content disputes, however, you should be thankful to AzureFury for being so tolerant of your comments. Yes, you were definitely provoked, I've seen you around on wikipedia, and you've always struck me as a very happy and jovial editor, however it seems to me that when you were provoked you lost that cheerful manner. What I think you need to improve upon is your response when you believe yourself to have been provoked; do you respond with all guns blazing? Or do you play it cool and ignore the provocation, instead focusing on the matter at hand; the content dispute. Ignoring taunts is the best way to get around them, yes being taunted is provoking, however, you need to try and maintain a cool head at all times, and ensure that your comments are all in keeping with policy. I hope that you too can learn from this matter. Remember, you can chose to either learn from mistakes, or to make the same mistakes again, in this case, I trust you will endeavour to learn.
Thanks you to both of you for taking the time to listen. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion and advice, and it may not reflect what anyone else thinks, in short, ignore it if you want.
Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho! 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous statement. Do you really want a list of your uncivil statements?
--no response---- Abusing ( talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
How can you deny being uncivil?-- Abusing ( talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's review. Abusing, Slp1, ColdplayExpert,Thejadefalcon and myself have outlined our opinion that, loosely paraphrasing, AzureFury's interactions are less than civil could be improved. Spitfire indicates they fall within civility but could be improved.[ [40]]. AzureFury's opinion is that he did not breach civility.[ [41]]. At this point it seems unlikely that further dialog here will come to a consensus. Perhaps as we go forward AzureFury will choose to keep in mind that although he considers his actions fine they rub others the wrong way. Or perhaps not. Regardless the best approach is to remain civil and, if AzureFury exhibits behavior the community finds unacceptable seek other means of dispute resolution. Gerardw ( talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Coldplay Expert has announced his withdrawal from this thread in an e-mail conversation with me. He has apologised, admitted he did wrong as well and I believe this thread now no longer concerns him and suggested he pull out now as a precaution in case he loses his temper again. If he is needed back, then please post a message on his talk page. Otherwise, I think it would be best if he puts this behind him. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Gavin.Collins on numerous occasions to refrain from personalising his posts, yet he cannot seem to refrain from doing so. Please can someone neutral review this post, [42]. Given that I wrote Wikipedia:Independent sources almost 3 and a half years ago, I find a statement like "I am glad that Hiding has now acknowledged that independent sourcing is a necessary..." to be unnecessary and patently false. I am tired of constantly having to defend myself from these sorts of attacks. Wikipedia is not supposed to descend to this level of discourse. Hiding T 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The person using the pseudonym kwamigwami has called me a "crackpot" and "nationalist" in the talk page of the Burushaski article. I believe people like this individual should not be allowed to have a higher editorial role and I demand an apology. Signed Ilijacasule ( talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ilijacasule
I copy the evidence:(quote kwami)
and further:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilijacasule ( talk • contribs)
Eekster has made accusatory accusations towards me, threatening me with being blocked, as well as assuming bad faith edits on my part. I edited what I saw to be very off topic and rambling passages on the entry for the film 'Can't Stop The Music'. My edits were then reverted by another user, who also assumed bad faith, and I did revert her edit once. An admin then reverted my edit and I was essentially accused by that editor and Eekster of vandalism and warned. Eekster and the editor also said that I did not give a reason for the edits I made, but I did and included them, so this is baffling. Eekster took it further by saying that I appeared to be engaged in an "edit war" base on the one and only reversion I performed. When I attempted to discuss the issue, he declined stating that I should "stop complaining" and raise the issue on the entry's talk page. I wrote back stating that my issue was with his accusatory tone, and judgment. I feel that this person does not have the proper judgment to be performing any manner of administrator duties. ( 75.69.241.91 ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
Well, I would have notified him, but my earlier attempt to discuss it was rebuffed, and before he, and another editor were essentially "ganging up" with multiple warnings which were overkill. The issue isn't the edit, but Eekster's undiplomatic and accusatory behavior, and judgment. So the "issue" has no place on that page. I made good faith edits and removed information that was irrelevant to the article, and I did revert what I considered to be vandalism, and for that I had two people issue warnings. Look at my history. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have reverted the edit, but should the other editor have not deleted mine without some discussion? Could they have taken those same steps. Anyone who sees what was deleted could see why it was, even if they do not agree with it, and nobody fair minded would view it as vandalism.
Eekster also stated that I did not give a reason for the edits, but I did and they are plainly there! Do you see a problem with him not even checking but accusing me of not stating a reason? Is that O.K.? Does one reversion really justify multiple warnings from two different people?
And why would I contact him when his behavior lead me to believe he was going to block me and abuse his power as the other admin essentially did, but then later removed his warning.
Is it just possible that people on Wikipedia who have privileges sometime abuse them or go overboard sometimes? An edit that someone does not care for isn't vandalism.
Eekster also issued me a warning after another administrator was dealing with it, and after the one edit:
"Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Can't Stop the Music, you will be blocked from editing. "
Continue to??? Can he explain that? I never "blanked" anything out, I had already stopped, and another Admin was already talking to me. What was Eekster's place here? Is this favoritism for the other editor?? Two admins for one reversion? And then multiple warnings?
Deleting off topic tangents is not "Vandalism", and what has happened here is I was accused, and treated very disrespectfully for no good reason. I am sincere that Eekster should be watched with his authority. All I can think of is the character Barney Fife, who abuses the little power he has. ( 75.69.241.91 ( talk) 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
User:KimDabelsteinPetersen User:Stephan Schulz User:Atmoz User:Apis O-tang User:William M. Connolley - have also continued to edit war to keep out notable criticism of realclimate. Several of them are administrators and or mediation cabal members. They show no interest in compromise as they seem to stretch wikipedia rules to hold critics to a different set of standards than those offering praise in the article. User:HaeB has twice reverted dispute tags on the article. [45] [46]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion is what has prompted me to start this. User:Coffee's conduct is rude and inconsiderate. In fact, he has even said that he intends on continuing this sort of behavior in the future. [47] This kind of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and needs to be resolved... The Thing Merry Christmas 14:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Spitfire. I do not like to see one of our Admins publicly belittled, or held up to ridicule, or to be demeaned in any way. Calling Coffee, another know-it-all kid, mean, a jerk, a dick, a prick, etc., by numerous editors was not showing an Admin. due respect. Nor am I calling on him to resign. I certainly do not want this to turn into a lynch mob. Yet I do have concern about some of Coffee's remarks i.e.
Now I am not saying comments like "Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking" are uncivil. Nor has Coffee hurt my feelings. Quite frankly in the real world I have been called worse, by better people. But when Admins behave like this it does hurt Wikipedia. This project depends on volunteers and donations. If Admins and Crats adopt the Coffee standard, we will have a problem. Coffee you know you can do a better job as an admin . . . One that we can all respect and admire - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
— Ched : ? 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Equazcion - you may want to think that last remark)
Perhaps it was a mistake that Arbcom resysopped Coffee without an RFA, after he shared his admin password with a non-admin? I have been on good terms with him, but I have noticed his incivility has been creeping up and up over the past few weeks. I say this as somebody who considers him a "wiki friend". He needs to tone it down. Majorly talk 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to properly communicate the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP issues regarding User:98.197.181.195's edits to League City, Texas. Perhaps I'm wrong and would appreciate another editor's review and assessment. Thank you, Postoak ( talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. With no real place to turn to (I don't feel this is an issue appropriate for anything drastic like WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM), I'd appreciate it if there could be some attention from kind individuals in a discussion between User:Sdsds. The issue arose when I nominated one of his articles for deletion, posted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galaxy_Express_Corporation. The comment left there by him led me to post this request to his talk page that he tries to assume good faith in that I am simply trying to benefit the Wikipedia project as a whole. This appears to have only escalated things, now at my talk page where he chooses to call me out as a "deletionist" despite the fact that this is a very minimal portion of my work, and claiming that I am somehow harming the Wikipedia project by trying to raise Wikipedia quality. If anyone could offer advice on how to proceed or step in to ease tensions, that would be great. I'm not sure what else to do. Feel free to ask any questions if necessary. -- Shirik ( talk) 06:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Mainly.generic started a discussion about this situation, and I once again explained why I deleted the notes, no matter how interesting they might have been. At first I was in a slight disagreement with User: 71.77.17.46 about the matter but after s/he backed off, User talk:65.41.234.238 came out of nowhere and started arguing to the point that I now can’t tell if s/he is against removing the notes or against me personally. Mainly.generic then came up with a very good proposal about how we can possibly improve the articles, and after I commented on it, 65.41.234.238 completely and unnecessarily picked it apart, and as I said before, it seems like s/he is doing so because it has something to do with me; it doesn’t even seem to be about the articles anymore. [49]
To say that 65.41.234.238’s behavior is incivil would be an understatement. Maybe some users think I’m reading too much into this, but I don’t. Thoughts? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I get a message from Metro telling me I am being discussed here. Could someone please explain why Metro is trying to intimidate everyone who disagrees with him. This doesn't make any sense. And by the way, before Metro accuses me of sockpuppetry, let me point out that I am the same user as anon 65.41.234.238. My IP address changes sometimes when I restart my modem. 65.41.234.70 ( talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Mainly.generic's accusations of "harboring a grudge" (a false accusation in my case, and a presumptuous assumption in all cases) in no way mitigates or justifies Metro's attempts to intimidate editors who disagree with him and Metro's own false accusations of personal attacks and sockpuppetry. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Slinging mud on this page does nothing to resolve the problems. 65.41.234.70 ( talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
User:BilCat is continuously calling me a vandal: [51], [52], [53]
When I asked him to stop that, he accused me of another blockable offense, again without evidence: [54]
Please ask him to stop. -- 91.55.204.136 ( talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please notify him, he just got his /Talk semiprotected. -- 91.55.204.136 ( talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
After reading the supplied diffs it is apparent that User:BilCat has acted entirely appropriately and has no case to answer. If anyone is guilty of incivility it is the 91.55.204.136 with his edit summary here. - Nick Thorne talk 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, mutuality would suggest that BilCat responds and shows at least a glimpse of understanding. Currently, he reacts with either reverts or personal attacks to my posts and does his best to avoid a discussion with me (spreading the topic all over the place in the process). -- 91.55.230.143 ( talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW: His attacks are continuing. -- 91.55.230.143 ( talk) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:
In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.
The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! -- 91.55.208.131 ( talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The proposer is putting similar comments about admins on the WP:ANI page so I think we can leave them to deal with any problem and close this here as being dealt with in another forum. Dmcq ( talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...
The most recent insults can be found here:
And so on, and so on... (this list is just for the last 3-4 weeks but really, it is endless!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!)
And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...
I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Wikipedia (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(in response to the NWQA tag that originall read "extensive past history recommend WP:AN/I Gerardw ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)") Note:Extensive history? Please, its still personal attacks. No need to send it off to ANI. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A user has started an apparent RFC attack page on me: User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 This user has trolled, deleted my articles, aggressively reverted my edits, complained to admins, canvased other users to attack me and now seems to be planning a RFC attack. This user is compulsively attacking me without dealing with the substantive issues.
I am looking for advice and attack intervention. The user has called me "pointless", a "waste of time", "non-productive" and "incoherent" as if he owns the article's POV. He does not want to talk directly, ignores and then escalates issues, without addressing the content or the issues raised by me and others on talk pages.
This user has a history of abusive admin powers (which were revoked), having previously blocked harmless editors. There is a litany of editors scraped by this users past abuses. Other editors have written critical articles on this users behavior.
I can create an long Diff list of RFC issues on this user's behavior, but that would not be appropriate at this junction. I am not completely innocent, I confess a few transgressions -- which unlike this aggressive user -- I can acknowledge and move on. I've taken a step back from our NPOV dispute for now. Doing my best to proceed with peaceful bold, revert, discuss cycles (including measurements). Any further advice will be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather ironic to begin a WA with This user has trolled..., no? User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is not an attack page - try reading it. It is a draft for an RFC, or rather the first notes towards one William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever about the justification of opinions they should be phrased about the content and not about the person. 'I think going down that alley wouldn't be fruitful as we've been over it before in xyz' for instance is a comment about content rather than saying a person is a waste of time. WP:Civility is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and one should 'Participate in a respectful and considerate way.' This situation most definitely does not seem resolved to me. Whay has the stuck marker been put on? I will remove it till a good reply. Dmcq ( talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe Polargeo is wrong to close this without giving WMC time to respond and will put in my own comment at the top. Dmcq ( talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm puzzled. We're all agreed (with the possible exception of ZP5) that the draft RFC page is OK. That was what the orignal complaint was about. If there are other complaints, can someone please state them succintly, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes: ZP5 is incoherent and a waste of time William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I should clarify: ZP5 is a waste of time on the GW articles (demonstrably so in the case of the two deleted articles he recently started). He may well be of value elsewhere; I haven't checked. He is often, not always, incoherent on the related talk pages William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I know of nothing that allows insults in RFC/U. It is entirely possible to discuss whether an editors contribution are non-constructive or disruptive by discussing what has happened, i.e. the issue rather than the person. Dmcq ( talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Am I to take it ZP5 that you are taking the view that the PAs are evidence of a problem that WMC was unable to express properly and you are therefore overlooking them in the hope of finding a remediable issue underneath? Dmcq ( talk) 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like stuck is the outcome then, there is no more that can be done in this forum. I'm very sorry about that. Dmcq ( talk) 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
User:B-Machine posted a statement saying that African-American and White mixtures were the result of White rape of Blacks in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=African_American&diff=prev&oldid=331651390
I removed the detail about "rape" as the sources I looked at did not characterize the majority of the mixing as rape and stated that he needed a source that explicitly said that if he wanted to continue making that claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=African_American&diff=331726936&oldid=331651390
His subsequent communication with me has been uncivil:
While I am an administrator, I am an involved user and cannot directly deal with him in regards to this issue.
I would like for some other users to give him guidance. Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am suffering terrible abuse from User: Satt 2 ( talk · contribs), please see (chronologically): this edit summary, this post, this post, this edit summary and this post. Izzedine 08:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | get the hell out of here | ” |
“ | listen you little creep. I dont know which handbook you copied this warning statements from, and I do not care to know.. Dont mess with the materials thats been there and agreed upon long before you popped up. | ” |
“ | STOP POSTING THIS GARBAGE on my page and get out of here.. Do not dare to post on my talk page ever again. I have nothing to do with you or people like you whatsoever. | ” |
“ | go back to the hole you crawled out of. | ” |
“ | Be damned. | ” |
Satt2 the behavior documented in the original post is unacceptable. Are you willing to cease voluntarily? Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 11:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
After receiving an extremely confrontational message on my talk page concerning my otherwise uncontroversial (and I thought welcome) improvement of a poorly made diagram on the menstruation article, I noticed that this user's talk page is full of requests to stop being "a jerk", or to read Don't be a dick or WP:ATTACK, all from different users involved in different articles. It looks like there was a previous Wikiquette_alert concerning this user in June, but the user failed to participate. IMO, it doesn't look like this user is taking our civility policy very seriously. Kaldari ( talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow - a destructive Admin... Thanks for removing the effective and useful diagram on the Menstruation article and replacing it with a less informative and essentially useless one... Ordinarily, one would think you are part of the watering-down of the media... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I'm having some issues with a user - and I've been unable to deal with them in the past, so hoped someone else would lend a neutral POV to this. Their contributions seem to be sort of a mixed bag.
(I am also trying to be retired but someone pointed this out to me):
In summary the user seems to want to remove anything but some strange arbitraty stuff they agree with, and want to replace all sources with references to the band's official site.
I have tried to discuss this with the user before, and was told by them not to talk to them again [70]. They refuse to participate in talk pages, and they refuse to use their account ever since they were blocked (although they are not currently blocked) [71]… The user has also (under other IPs) edit warred with others and myself [72], along with personal attacks and foul language [73]…
I'm not sure how to approach this, didn't want to dig up everything (there were other edit wars I wasn't involved in but they're easy to find) and I really don't want to get involved anymore, but I hope someone else cares enough to get involved. I'm not sure if/when I'll check back here, so feel free to do whatever seems best. Thanks. Luminifer ( talk) 07:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A talk page, Talk:Crucifixion in art, is being enthusiastically discussed and modified by an online forum. That's led to a great number of talkpage comments from SPAs. That isn't terrible, but they border the line of discussing the article, discussing the individual ( User:Tryptofish), and just shouting into the ether.
Tryptofish tried to boldly hide some of the discussions rather that outright remove them, but some of the usual IPs are undoing that effort. Can someone independent to the article take a look and see if the entries should be removed, archived, or simply left alone? tedder ( talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see also Talk:Something Awful#Possible addition. I'm going to just drop the stick and WP:DENY at this point, but please note how editors are coming as meatpuppets from the site, with a clear COI of preventing any edit to the page that goes against a one-sided positive POV. Also, parroting of references to WP:SPADE at Talk:Crucifixion in art, and a registered editor who is making a career of going from talk page to talk page and rendering my user name as "Typofish". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This editor has issues with my editing, and these matters can be discussed elsewhere. What I object to and would like to have Tenebrae spoken to about is his manner of communication. Irrespective of what he believes, comments in Edit Summaries should not name another editor or make derogatory assumptions : [79] This user is not an adminstrator. Many thanks.
Asgardian ( talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This situation may seem minor compared to others on this page, but my intent is to get a little advice and try to curb this before it mushrooms into something more serious. User:WVBluefield has joined an ongoing lengthy discussion at Talk:Bill Maher - a discussion which has already had its share of degeneration into unproductive discourse in the past. WVBluefield entered the discussion by starting this thread with his admittedly soapbox commentary on other editors (myself included):
He followed that with constructive discussion about article improvement, so I ignored his comments on editors and responded only to his discussion about the article. He then responded by mischaracterizing my comments to him:
I felt the insertion of these invectives into an otherwise constructive discussion was unproductive, so I removed the offensive wording, citing WP:NPA, and continued the discussion with him. As sometimes happens when comments about editors are refactored from talk pages, WVBluefield got upset, reverted my removals and threatened to go to ANI if I didn't leave his incivilities on the article talk page.
This was getting worse faster than it was getting better. I tried to engage him on his talk page. Instead of edit warring over his incivilities, I asked him if he would remove his inappropriate comments himself, or explain why he felt they needed to be on an article talk page. His terse response:
Here is the full exchange between us on his talk page, which he has since deleted. His commentary about editors and incivilities remain on the article talk page, and he refuses to acknowledge another editor's concerns about them. Well, I've seen worse - so I figured I'd let the still minor matter blow over. Unfortunately, WVBluefield has other plans. After responding to other editors, WVBluefield felt the need to interject this personal attack into an already existent otherwise reasonable comment:
That is unacceptable, and I highly suspect I am being baited or trolled into a harsher reaction. Add to that he has been recently blocked for, coincidentally, "incivility and disruptive edit warring on article talk page". That just tells me this has the potential to get worse. Are my concerns warranted? Advice? Xenophrenic ( talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I wont remove anything, as your behavior was even worse than I first characterized. I know I said I wouldn’t comment further on this, but one quick response is needed. You deleted my additional paragraph not once, but twice even when one of my edit summaries was very specific that I was adding additional comments. I can only assume that your removal of Don’t modify my talk page comments. There were no personal attacks there, only observations and some constructive advice was your attempt to drive the talk page discussion in a way that favored you. WVBluefield ( talk) 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is best not to remove other editor's comments except in extraordinary circumstances Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If you feel attack, ask the user to remove or rephrase and if that fails bringing to WQA would be a good next step. Could Xenophrenic agree not to edit other's comments and WVBluefield to keep the content discussion on the content and not other editors? Gerardw ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
WQA is not a place to come to enlist supporters for your dispute with another editor. The diffs provided to support your claim of NPA do nothing of the sort and to claim that they do is arrant nonsense. At worst the comments could be described as very midly uncivil, but even that is stretching it. On the other hand, editing talk page comments by other editors is forbidden (even editing your own comments on article talk pages is strongly discouraged). Editors have been blocked before for far less and frankly your attitude here seems to be tendentious. I suggest you drop the whole thing, take a break and allow yourself to cool down and then when you come back to Wikipedia you might consider editing somewhere else where you are not so emotionally invested. If you continue down your current path I predict a block in your future. No I am not an admin, which is probably just as well for you or you would have already been blocked. - Nick Thorne talk 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. -- WP:NPA
Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. -- WP:TP
Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism --
WP:Civility
Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. -- WP:NPA
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: --
WP:NPA
Once again, Nick, I respectfully ask that you let the matter rest. Please stop picking fights with me; please cease trying to escalate a closed matter. G'day,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What we do here, as outlined here [ [80]], is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility and/or difficult communications; The input of two neutral editors has been that WVBluefield's edits were not significantly uncivil enough to warrant editing talk page comments. Your stated goal in posting was to get a little advice, which has been provided. As you stated the matter was closed, I'm tagging this section as resolved; if you disagree we can tag it WQA in progress to solicit additional editor's input. Alternatively you can take the complaint to WP:AN/I. My opinion is concurrent with Nick's: I think it likely you would receive more scrutiny for editing the talk page comments than WVBluefield would for posting them. Gerardw ( talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the attitude and actions of an IP editor, 70.241.26.184, on talk:Jennifer Garner. Recently, another IP editor questioned the relevance of one of the sections in the biography of Jennifer Garner. A registered editor, Emma white20, posted in defence of the section, at which point 70.241.26.184 joined the discussion, supporting the view of the first IP editor and stating that "If it's not rewritten and sourced within the next few weeks, I'll remove it myself". Emma white20 replied to the post by 70.241.26.184 stating in question form their view that, if the section was indeed unencyclopedic and irrelevant, it would almost certainly have been removed a long time ago by one of the experienced and registered editors who regularly police the article. They then did as 70.241.26.184 demanded by editing the section and adding additional sources to the four already there, at which point 70.241.26.184 accused Emma white20 of "bulldozing" and made a claim of apparent greater authority/experience as an editor than appears to be supported by their short edit history. They also posted what amounted to an ultimatum by stating "If the section isn't improved 'in the next day or so', I'll ask for a third, fourth or even fifth opinion on this because I'm not about to roll over just because you have an issue with playing well with others." At this point, I joined the discussion in support of Emma white20's position on retention, and stated that, in my opinion, editing down and sourcing an article didn't class as "bulldozing", while giving ultimatums to other editors and trying to influence their edits could certainly be interpreted that way. 70.241.26.184 then made further accusations of posts against them being "dismissive" and "condescending", which may have been aimed at either myself or Emma white20, although it is unclear who they were actually aimed at. With the discussion deadlocked with two IP editors in favour of deleting the section, and two registered editors in favour of retention, and without any prior open consultation with the other editors involved, 70.241.26.184 then opened an RfC on the matter of possible deletion of the section, in what could possibly be construed as an apparent attempt to gain support for their position. It seems to me that they may be trying to rush Wikipedia process in an attempt to get their way, plus have some issues with their attitude towards other editors who hold opposing views, and I'd certainly appreciate any additional views on their conduct and help with resolving the situation. Gidz ( talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Gerardw ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Izzedine has made changes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without consensus, then when I question Izzedine about Izzedine's reasons, User labels me as being rude and pejorative. User posted a warning to my page and deleted my warning on user's page. This is not the first time user has deleted warning off user's talk page, see difference at User talk:Izzedine 01:55, 2009 November 27. THough I know Users are permitted to delete comments off their user pages, it still gets in the way of tallying up a user's tendency for losing neutrality. a problem this user clearly suffers from. Please assist. THanks.-- Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, this looks very overblown to me. Your only complaint against Izzedine seems to be that they gave you a {{
uw-joke}} template on your talk page? However, you also gave them a {{
uw-npov}} template, why do you think its less acceptable for Izzedine to template you then it is for you to template them?
I agree that the {{
uw-joke}} template is one that could be very annoying, especially if your edits are made in good faith, but then, the same goes for the {{
uw-npov}}. When you are in a content dispute, the answer is to discuss your concerns with the other party/ies, not to post templates on each others talk pages. The "uw-" templates are generally reserved for vandalism, not for good-faith attempts at article building. Another thing that is generally reserved for vandalism is
WP:AIV, Abie, it wasn't very constructive to report Izzedine there. The first step in dispute resolution is to bring up your concerns with the other editor/s concerned (user warnings don't count as bringing up your concerns).
My advice is this:
Izzedine; I suggest that in future disputes your first action is to politely bring up your concerns with the other editors, try not to use user warning templates.
Abie the Fish Peddler; pretty much the same, I know that it can be extremely aggravating to receive a user warning template that isn't deserved, as I have in the past received such warnings. I suggest that instead of retaliating by posting another warning on the other users talk page you instead gently discuss the issue with them.
To both of you: I suggest that you leave the matter of the warnings behind you, and (if you want to) proceed to resolve the issue on the
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a polite and civil way.
Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho! 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue is resolved. I asked for other editors to give their perspectives. So far one has. And I was able to understand that the photograph Izzedine wanted was the best choice. Though I still think Izzedine is very quick to take things personally. I wish in the future Izzedine will keep the suspicion of ulterior motives out of the discussion. I have also learned that if an editor reports that I have been vandalizing, that doesn't mean that I have been vandalizing and I don't need to freak out. Thanks for your help. -- Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi-
There are many things wrong with the Bob Costas wiki page. Under Occupation it says something inappropriate. And in the explanation of how his career began it says something else inappropriate.
please fix the problem and monitor it so it doesn't continue to be an issue.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.12.190 ( talk) 04:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User Makrand Joshi [1]is personally attacking and harrassing me by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.
It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [2] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [3]
Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [4] He changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [5]
He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [6], here [7], here [8].
I had reported the user for edit warring here, [9] for which he responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and how pathetic and malicious I was.
I request you to tell him to not harass me using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Wireless Fidelity Class One ( talk 11:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not acceptable that Makrand Joshi has the right to personally harrass and hound me off editing.
AzureFury has become increasingly uncivil on the Iraq War talk page. His behavior has resulted in several disputes. An editor came to the talk page and stated their opinion that the article was not neutral. [10] They didn't list any specific reasons as to why they thought this, and this created a small dispute as to whether or not their POV claim was even legitimate. This dispute shortly led to the beginning of uncivil and bad faith comments by AzureFury: [11] [12] The next part, long story short, was me letting them know that they were being uncivil -- and Azure claiming that doing so was a personal attack [13] although they were also confronted by another user about it as well. [14] I feel I civilly and clearly explained myself in an attempt to get them to understand that they were being unreasonable, [15], but their response was unnecessarily hostile. [16] Although I cited wp:civility to them, they ignored my argument and suggestions to read it, instead seemingly taking quotes out of wp:agf and wp:npa to defend their actions.
Not long after, another editor posted a new section on the talk page, raising a question between the usage of the words words "war" and "conflict". [17] AzureFury, despite the multiple clearly given warnings at the top of the page, responded by using the talk page as a forum for his view that the war is illegal. [18] Although I cited wp:TPNO to tell him that his comment was unacceptable for a talk page, and wp:TPO to let him know that it could be removed, [19] he refused to acknowledge his inappropriate comment, using the argument that wp:TPO didn't say anything about expressing opinions [20] (again, I had given him the direct link to the section that spells out inappropriate behavior on a talk page -- wp:TPNO). His refusal to heed the warnings directly led to another, long, drawn out dispute between AzureFury and User:Coldplay Expert, who was also asserting AzureFury's incivility. The argument between the two quickly became a personal political debate, although AzureFury explictly stated that since WP:BITE didn't apply to Coldplay Expert, they refuse to assume good faith and be welcoming (completely disregarding wp:civility). [21] The argument between the two continued until a third party had to step in and archive the entire section [22] and suggest dispute resolution. That section can be seen here. It seems clear that AzureFury, despite multiple warnings, is unfamiliar with wp:civility and talk page behavioral guidelines, and this has resulted in long disputes that disrupt the article and the talk page. I tried to deal with it myself, but they seem uninterested with familiarizing themselves with policy.-- Abusing ( talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
My above statement contains links to several uncivil statements. This does not necessarily mean personal attacks. Coldplay Expert might have also acted uncivilly in the dispute that erupted, but the dispute was a result of AzureFury's failure to stop behaving that way when I first tried to tell him to stop. The problem is AzureFury's ongoing incivility on the talk page that has created several disputes, not just the one most recent dispute that has already been resolved.-- Abusing ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this dispute myself, so I can't comment specifically on this incident. But I will say that I have had previous unpleasant editing experience with AzureFury. I would concur with the comments about general high level of hostility, disrespectful discourse and overall talkpage disruption engendered by his/her edits. I summarize some of my concerns in this edit. I actually unwatchlisted the page concerned due in the main to AF's activities there. Based on my experience, I would certainly urge AF to consider the tone and tenor of his/her talkpage contributions and whether they really productive or in the spirit of a collaborative project. -- Slp1 ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright AzureFury, I'm just going to briefly run through some places where I think you behaved inappropriately, and then offer some thoughts and advice, if thats alright with you. These are not necessarily the only breachs of
WP:CIVIL.
You should remember that: "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;" is considered a breach of
WP:CIVIL. By commenting "Eh, I've fed this troll enough. I'll stop", you provoked cold play by this comment, although the fact that cold play was provoked doesn't excuse his following comments, nor do his following comments excuse your taunt.
Secondly, your repeated assertions that Cold Play hadn't read the article were not particularly helpful in resolving the matter. Although I don't know whether or not cold play did or did not read the article, it was slightly pushing it to keep on asserting as such, regardless or whether he had or not.
Thirdly, your comments at Cold Play regarding his motives for bring up the issue where uncalled for, suggesting that he might only be concerned due to a feeling of patriotism, or that he might be motivated by political opinions, are both borderline
WP:CIVIL concerns.
However, AzureFury, although there are points when you certainly could have behaved far better, I feel that overall, your conduct was keeping in-line with
WP:CIVIL, save for a few specific comments. I think you should however be extremely careful about how you treat other editors in content disputes. Your aim should be to resolve the dispute, not inflame it, every comment you make, it may be worth sitting back and thinking "is this really going to help resolve the matter?" if not, then change the comment. Never lose sight of the goal of these disputes, which is to improve the article. People can get caught up in disputes and try to continue them for their own sake, be careful that you do not. Your taunting of Cold Play is also something worth thinking on, as is your general attitude when conducting these conflicts, remember that the other editor is most likely a good faith editor who genuinely believes that their suggestions will improve the article, please deal with them with a more polite disposition in future. Again, your overall your conduct hasn't been quite so bad as has been made out, however, you can still learn from it and improve. Thanks for your patience in reading this.
Cold Play, although it seems to have been played down here, your conduct wasn't exactly exemplary, and you can definitely improve upon it. AzureFury has been extremely patience and tolerant of your behaviour. Such comments as: "Well congrats you got your wish jerk" and "Your actions at this talk page alone proves that you can be a WP:DICK. Its plain and simple" aren't constructive, they are not polite and they most certainly don't help to resolve the dispute. I understand that you are fairly new to content disputes, however, you should be thankful to AzureFury for being so tolerant of your comments. Yes, you were definitely provoked, I've seen you around on wikipedia, and you've always struck me as a very happy and jovial editor, however it seems to me that when you were provoked you lost that cheerful manner. What I think you need to improve upon is your response when you believe yourself to have been provoked; do you respond with all guns blazing? Or do you play it cool and ignore the provocation, instead focusing on the matter at hand; the content dispute. Ignoring taunts is the best way to get around them, yes being taunted is provoking, however, you need to try and maintain a cool head at all times, and ensure that your comments are all in keeping with policy. I hope that you too can learn from this matter. Remember, you can chose to either learn from mistakes, or to make the same mistakes again, in this case, I trust you will endeavour to learn.
Thanks you to both of you for taking the time to listen. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion and advice, and it may not reflect what anyone else thinks, in short, ignore it if you want.
Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho! 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous statement. Do you really want a list of your uncivil statements?
--no response---- Abusing ( talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
How can you deny being uncivil?-- Abusing ( talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's review. Abusing, Slp1, ColdplayExpert,Thejadefalcon and myself have outlined our opinion that, loosely paraphrasing, AzureFury's interactions are less than civil could be improved. Spitfire indicates they fall within civility but could be improved.[ [40]]. AzureFury's opinion is that he did not breach civility.[ [41]]. At this point it seems unlikely that further dialog here will come to a consensus. Perhaps as we go forward AzureFury will choose to keep in mind that although he considers his actions fine they rub others the wrong way. Or perhaps not. Regardless the best approach is to remain civil and, if AzureFury exhibits behavior the community finds unacceptable seek other means of dispute resolution. Gerardw ( talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Coldplay Expert has announced his withdrawal from this thread in an e-mail conversation with me. He has apologised, admitted he did wrong as well and I believe this thread now no longer concerns him and suggested he pull out now as a precaution in case he loses his temper again. If he is needed back, then please post a message on his talk page. Otherwise, I think it would be best if he puts this behind him. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Gavin.Collins on numerous occasions to refrain from personalising his posts, yet he cannot seem to refrain from doing so. Please can someone neutral review this post, [42]. Given that I wrote Wikipedia:Independent sources almost 3 and a half years ago, I find a statement like "I am glad that Hiding has now acknowledged that independent sourcing is a necessary..." to be unnecessary and patently false. I am tired of constantly having to defend myself from these sorts of attacks. Wikipedia is not supposed to descend to this level of discourse. Hiding T 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The person using the pseudonym kwamigwami has called me a "crackpot" and "nationalist" in the talk page of the Burushaski article. I believe people like this individual should not be allowed to have a higher editorial role and I demand an apology. Signed Ilijacasule ( talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ilijacasule
I copy the evidence:(quote kwami)
and further:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilijacasule ( talk • contribs)
Eekster has made accusatory accusations towards me, threatening me with being blocked, as well as assuming bad faith edits on my part. I edited what I saw to be very off topic and rambling passages on the entry for the film 'Can't Stop The Music'. My edits were then reverted by another user, who also assumed bad faith, and I did revert her edit once. An admin then reverted my edit and I was essentially accused by that editor and Eekster of vandalism and warned. Eekster and the editor also said that I did not give a reason for the edits I made, but I did and included them, so this is baffling. Eekster took it further by saying that I appeared to be engaged in an "edit war" base on the one and only reversion I performed. When I attempted to discuss the issue, he declined stating that I should "stop complaining" and raise the issue on the entry's talk page. I wrote back stating that my issue was with his accusatory tone, and judgment. I feel that this person does not have the proper judgment to be performing any manner of administrator duties. ( 75.69.241.91 ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
Well, I would have notified him, but my earlier attempt to discuss it was rebuffed, and before he, and another editor were essentially "ganging up" with multiple warnings which were overkill. The issue isn't the edit, but Eekster's undiplomatic and accusatory behavior, and judgment. So the "issue" has no place on that page. I made good faith edits and removed information that was irrelevant to the article, and I did revert what I considered to be vandalism, and for that I had two people issue warnings. Look at my history. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have reverted the edit, but should the other editor have not deleted mine without some discussion? Could they have taken those same steps. Anyone who sees what was deleted could see why it was, even if they do not agree with it, and nobody fair minded would view it as vandalism.
Eekster also stated that I did not give a reason for the edits, but I did and they are plainly there! Do you see a problem with him not even checking but accusing me of not stating a reason? Is that O.K.? Does one reversion really justify multiple warnings from two different people?
And why would I contact him when his behavior lead me to believe he was going to block me and abuse his power as the other admin essentially did, but then later removed his warning.
Is it just possible that people on Wikipedia who have privileges sometime abuse them or go overboard sometimes? An edit that someone does not care for isn't vandalism.
Eekster also issued me a warning after another administrator was dealing with it, and after the one edit:
"Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Can't Stop the Music, you will be blocked from editing. "
Continue to??? Can he explain that? I never "blanked" anything out, I had already stopped, and another Admin was already talking to me. What was Eekster's place here? Is this favoritism for the other editor?? Two admins for one reversion? And then multiple warnings?
Deleting off topic tangents is not "Vandalism", and what has happened here is I was accused, and treated very disrespectfully for no good reason. I am sincere that Eekster should be watched with his authority. All I can think of is the character Barney Fife, who abuses the little power he has. ( 75.69.241.91 ( talk) 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
User:KimDabelsteinPetersen User:Stephan Schulz User:Atmoz User:Apis O-tang User:William M. Connolley - have also continued to edit war to keep out notable criticism of realclimate. Several of them are administrators and or mediation cabal members. They show no interest in compromise as they seem to stretch wikipedia rules to hold critics to a different set of standards than those offering praise in the article. User:HaeB has twice reverted dispute tags on the article. [45] [46]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion is what has prompted me to start this. User:Coffee's conduct is rude and inconsiderate. In fact, he has even said that he intends on continuing this sort of behavior in the future. [47] This kind of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and needs to be resolved... The Thing Merry Christmas 14:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Spitfire. I do not like to see one of our Admins publicly belittled, or held up to ridicule, or to be demeaned in any way. Calling Coffee, another know-it-all kid, mean, a jerk, a dick, a prick, etc., by numerous editors was not showing an Admin. due respect. Nor am I calling on him to resign. I certainly do not want this to turn into a lynch mob. Yet I do have concern about some of Coffee's remarks i.e.
Now I am not saying comments like "Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking" are uncivil. Nor has Coffee hurt my feelings. Quite frankly in the real world I have been called worse, by better people. But when Admins behave like this it does hurt Wikipedia. This project depends on volunteers and donations. If Admins and Crats adopt the Coffee standard, we will have a problem. Coffee you know you can do a better job as an admin . . . One that we can all respect and admire - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
— Ched : ? 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Equazcion - you may want to think that last remark)
Perhaps it was a mistake that Arbcom resysopped Coffee without an RFA, after he shared his admin password with a non-admin? I have been on good terms with him, but I have noticed his incivility has been creeping up and up over the past few weeks. I say this as somebody who considers him a "wiki friend". He needs to tone it down. Majorly talk 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to properly communicate the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP issues regarding User:98.197.181.195's edits to League City, Texas. Perhaps I'm wrong and would appreciate another editor's review and assessment. Thank you, Postoak ( talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. With no real place to turn to (I don't feel this is an issue appropriate for anything drastic like WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM), I'd appreciate it if there could be some attention from kind individuals in a discussion between User:Sdsds. The issue arose when I nominated one of his articles for deletion, posted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galaxy_Express_Corporation. The comment left there by him led me to post this request to his talk page that he tries to assume good faith in that I am simply trying to benefit the Wikipedia project as a whole. This appears to have only escalated things, now at my talk page where he chooses to call me out as a "deletionist" despite the fact that this is a very minimal portion of my work, and claiming that I am somehow harming the Wikipedia project by trying to raise Wikipedia quality. If anyone could offer advice on how to proceed or step in to ease tensions, that would be great. I'm not sure what else to do. Feel free to ask any questions if necessary. -- Shirik ( talk) 06:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Mainly.generic started a discussion about this situation, and I once again explained why I deleted the notes, no matter how interesting they might have been. At first I was in a slight disagreement with User: 71.77.17.46 about the matter but after s/he backed off, User talk:65.41.234.238 came out of nowhere and started arguing to the point that I now can’t tell if s/he is against removing the notes or against me personally. Mainly.generic then came up with a very good proposal about how we can possibly improve the articles, and after I commented on it, 65.41.234.238 completely and unnecessarily picked it apart, and as I said before, it seems like s/he is doing so because it has something to do with me; it doesn’t even seem to be about the articles anymore. [49]
To say that 65.41.234.238’s behavior is incivil would be an understatement. Maybe some users think I’m reading too much into this, but I don’t. Thoughts? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I get a message from Metro telling me I am being discussed here. Could someone please explain why Metro is trying to intimidate everyone who disagrees with him. This doesn't make any sense. And by the way, before Metro accuses me of sockpuppetry, let me point out that I am the same user as anon 65.41.234.238. My IP address changes sometimes when I restart my modem. 65.41.234.70 ( talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Mainly.generic's accusations of "harboring a grudge" (a false accusation in my case, and a presumptuous assumption in all cases) in no way mitigates or justifies Metro's attempts to intimidate editors who disagree with him and Metro's own false accusations of personal attacks and sockpuppetry. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Slinging mud on this page does nothing to resolve the problems. 65.41.234.70 ( talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
User:BilCat is continuously calling me a vandal: [51], [52], [53]
When I asked him to stop that, he accused me of another blockable offense, again without evidence: [54]
Please ask him to stop. -- 91.55.204.136 ( talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please notify him, he just got his /Talk semiprotected. -- 91.55.204.136 ( talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
After reading the supplied diffs it is apparent that User:BilCat has acted entirely appropriately and has no case to answer. If anyone is guilty of incivility it is the 91.55.204.136 with his edit summary here. - Nick Thorne talk 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, mutuality would suggest that BilCat responds and shows at least a glimpse of understanding. Currently, he reacts with either reverts or personal attacks to my posts and does his best to avoid a discussion with me (spreading the topic all over the place in the process). -- 91.55.230.143 ( talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW: His attacks are continuing. -- 91.55.230.143 ( talk) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:
In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.
The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! -- 91.55.208.131 ( talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The proposer is putting similar comments about admins on the WP:ANI page so I think we can leave them to deal with any problem and close this here as being dealt with in another forum. Dmcq ( talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...
The most recent insults can be found here:
And so on, and so on... (this list is just for the last 3-4 weeks but really, it is endless!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!)
And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...
I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Wikipedia (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(in response to the NWQA tag that originall read "extensive past history recommend WP:AN/I Gerardw ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)") Note:Extensive history? Please, its still personal attacks. No need to send it off to ANI. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A user has started an apparent RFC attack page on me: User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 This user has trolled, deleted my articles, aggressively reverted my edits, complained to admins, canvased other users to attack me and now seems to be planning a RFC attack. This user is compulsively attacking me without dealing with the substantive issues.
I am looking for advice and attack intervention. The user has called me "pointless", a "waste of time", "non-productive" and "incoherent" as if he owns the article's POV. He does not want to talk directly, ignores and then escalates issues, without addressing the content or the issues raised by me and others on talk pages.
This user has a history of abusive admin powers (which were revoked), having previously blocked harmless editors. There is a litany of editors scraped by this users past abuses. Other editors have written critical articles on this users behavior.
I can create an long Diff list of RFC issues on this user's behavior, but that would not be appropriate at this junction. I am not completely innocent, I confess a few transgressions -- which unlike this aggressive user -- I can acknowledge and move on. I've taken a step back from our NPOV dispute for now. Doing my best to proceed with peaceful bold, revert, discuss cycles (including measurements). Any further advice will be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather ironic to begin a WA with This user has trolled..., no? User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is not an attack page - try reading it. It is a draft for an RFC, or rather the first notes towards one William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever about the justification of opinions they should be phrased about the content and not about the person. 'I think going down that alley wouldn't be fruitful as we've been over it before in xyz' for instance is a comment about content rather than saying a person is a waste of time. WP:Civility is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and one should 'Participate in a respectful and considerate way.' This situation most definitely does not seem resolved to me. Whay has the stuck marker been put on? I will remove it till a good reply. Dmcq ( talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe Polargeo is wrong to close this without giving WMC time to respond and will put in my own comment at the top. Dmcq ( talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm puzzled. We're all agreed (with the possible exception of ZP5) that the draft RFC page is OK. That was what the orignal complaint was about. If there are other complaints, can someone please state them succintly, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes: ZP5 is incoherent and a waste of time William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I should clarify: ZP5 is a waste of time on the GW articles (demonstrably so in the case of the two deleted articles he recently started). He may well be of value elsewhere; I haven't checked. He is often, not always, incoherent on the related talk pages William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I know of nothing that allows insults in RFC/U. It is entirely possible to discuss whether an editors contribution are non-constructive or disruptive by discussing what has happened, i.e. the issue rather than the person. Dmcq ( talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Am I to take it ZP5 that you are taking the view that the PAs are evidence of a problem that WMC was unable to express properly and you are therefore overlooking them in the hope of finding a remediable issue underneath? Dmcq ( talk) 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like stuck is the outcome then, there is no more that can be done in this forum. I'm very sorry about that. Dmcq ( talk) 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
User:B-Machine posted a statement saying that African-American and White mixtures were the result of White rape of Blacks in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=African_American&diff=prev&oldid=331651390
I removed the detail about "rape" as the sources I looked at did not characterize the majority of the mixing as rape and stated that he needed a source that explicitly said that if he wanted to continue making that claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=African_American&diff=331726936&oldid=331651390
His subsequent communication with me has been uncivil:
While I am an administrator, I am an involved user and cannot directly deal with him in regards to this issue.
I would like for some other users to give him guidance. Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am suffering terrible abuse from User: Satt 2 ( talk · contribs), please see (chronologically): this edit summary, this post, this post, this edit summary and this post. Izzedine 08:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | get the hell out of here | ” |
“ | listen you little creep. I dont know which handbook you copied this warning statements from, and I do not care to know.. Dont mess with the materials thats been there and agreed upon long before you popped up. | ” |
“ | STOP POSTING THIS GARBAGE on my page and get out of here.. Do not dare to post on my talk page ever again. I have nothing to do with you or people like you whatsoever. | ” |
“ | go back to the hole you crawled out of. | ” |
“ | Be damned. | ” |
Satt2 the behavior documented in the original post is unacceptable. Are you willing to cease voluntarily? Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 11:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
After receiving an extremely confrontational message on my talk page concerning my otherwise uncontroversial (and I thought welcome) improvement of a poorly made diagram on the menstruation article, I noticed that this user's talk page is full of requests to stop being "a jerk", or to read Don't be a dick or WP:ATTACK, all from different users involved in different articles. It looks like there was a previous Wikiquette_alert concerning this user in June, but the user failed to participate. IMO, it doesn't look like this user is taking our civility policy very seriously. Kaldari ( talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow - a destructive Admin... Thanks for removing the effective and useful diagram on the Menstruation article and replacing it with a less informative and essentially useless one... Ordinarily, one would think you are part of the watering-down of the media... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I'm having some issues with a user - and I've been unable to deal with them in the past, so hoped someone else would lend a neutral POV to this. Their contributions seem to be sort of a mixed bag.
(I am also trying to be retired but someone pointed this out to me):
In summary the user seems to want to remove anything but some strange arbitraty stuff they agree with, and want to replace all sources with references to the band's official site.
I have tried to discuss this with the user before, and was told by them not to talk to them again [70]. They refuse to participate in talk pages, and they refuse to use their account ever since they were blocked (although they are not currently blocked) [71]… The user has also (under other IPs) edit warred with others and myself [72], along with personal attacks and foul language [73]…
I'm not sure how to approach this, didn't want to dig up everything (there were other edit wars I wasn't involved in but they're easy to find) and I really don't want to get involved anymore, but I hope someone else cares enough to get involved. I'm not sure if/when I'll check back here, so feel free to do whatever seems best. Thanks. Luminifer ( talk) 07:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A talk page, Talk:Crucifixion in art, is being enthusiastically discussed and modified by an online forum. That's led to a great number of talkpage comments from SPAs. That isn't terrible, but they border the line of discussing the article, discussing the individual ( User:Tryptofish), and just shouting into the ether.
Tryptofish tried to boldly hide some of the discussions rather that outright remove them, but some of the usual IPs are undoing that effort. Can someone independent to the article take a look and see if the entries should be removed, archived, or simply left alone? tedder ( talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see also Talk:Something Awful#Possible addition. I'm going to just drop the stick and WP:DENY at this point, but please note how editors are coming as meatpuppets from the site, with a clear COI of preventing any edit to the page that goes against a one-sided positive POV. Also, parroting of references to WP:SPADE at Talk:Crucifixion in art, and a registered editor who is making a career of going from talk page to talk page and rendering my user name as "Typofish". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This editor has issues with my editing, and these matters can be discussed elsewhere. What I object to and would like to have Tenebrae spoken to about is his manner of communication. Irrespective of what he believes, comments in Edit Summaries should not name another editor or make derogatory assumptions : [79] This user is not an adminstrator. Many thanks.
Asgardian ( talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This situation may seem minor compared to others on this page, but my intent is to get a little advice and try to curb this before it mushrooms into something more serious. User:WVBluefield has joined an ongoing lengthy discussion at Talk:Bill Maher - a discussion which has already had its share of degeneration into unproductive discourse in the past. WVBluefield entered the discussion by starting this thread with his admittedly soapbox commentary on other editors (myself included):
He followed that with constructive discussion about article improvement, so I ignored his comments on editors and responded only to his discussion about the article. He then responded by mischaracterizing my comments to him:
I felt the insertion of these invectives into an otherwise constructive discussion was unproductive, so I removed the offensive wording, citing WP:NPA, and continued the discussion with him. As sometimes happens when comments about editors are refactored from talk pages, WVBluefield got upset, reverted my removals and threatened to go to ANI if I didn't leave his incivilities on the article talk page.
This was getting worse faster than it was getting better. I tried to engage him on his talk page. Instead of edit warring over his incivilities, I asked him if he would remove his inappropriate comments himself, or explain why he felt they needed to be on an article talk page. His terse response:
Here is the full exchange between us on his talk page, which he has since deleted. His commentary about editors and incivilities remain on the article talk page, and he refuses to acknowledge another editor's concerns about them. Well, I've seen worse - so I figured I'd let the still minor matter blow over. Unfortunately, WVBluefield has other plans. After responding to other editors, WVBluefield felt the need to interject this personal attack into an already existent otherwise reasonable comment:
That is unacceptable, and I highly suspect I am being baited or trolled into a harsher reaction. Add to that he has been recently blocked for, coincidentally, "incivility and disruptive edit warring on article talk page". That just tells me this has the potential to get worse. Are my concerns warranted? Advice? Xenophrenic ( talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I wont remove anything, as your behavior was even worse than I first characterized. I know I said I wouldn’t comment further on this, but one quick response is needed. You deleted my additional paragraph not once, but twice even when one of my edit summaries was very specific that I was adding additional comments. I can only assume that your removal of Don’t modify my talk page comments. There were no personal attacks there, only observations and some constructive advice was your attempt to drive the talk page discussion in a way that favored you. WVBluefield ( talk) 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is best not to remove other editor's comments except in extraordinary circumstances Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If you feel attack, ask the user to remove or rephrase and if that fails bringing to WQA would be a good next step. Could Xenophrenic agree not to edit other's comments and WVBluefield to keep the content discussion on the content and not other editors? Gerardw ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
WQA is not a place to come to enlist supporters for your dispute with another editor. The diffs provided to support your claim of NPA do nothing of the sort and to claim that they do is arrant nonsense. At worst the comments could be described as very midly uncivil, but even that is stretching it. On the other hand, editing talk page comments by other editors is forbidden (even editing your own comments on article talk pages is strongly discouraged). Editors have been blocked before for far less and frankly your attitude here seems to be tendentious. I suggest you drop the whole thing, take a break and allow yourself to cool down and then when you come back to Wikipedia you might consider editing somewhere else where you are not so emotionally invested. If you continue down your current path I predict a block in your future. No I am not an admin, which is probably just as well for you or you would have already been blocked. - Nick Thorne talk 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. -- WP:NPA
Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. -- WP:TP
Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism --
WP:Civility
Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. -- WP:NPA
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: --
WP:NPA
Once again, Nick, I respectfully ask that you let the matter rest. Please stop picking fights with me; please cease trying to escalate a closed matter. G'day,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What we do here, as outlined here [ [80]], is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility and/or difficult communications; The input of two neutral editors has been that WVBluefield's edits were not significantly uncivil enough to warrant editing talk page comments. Your stated goal in posting was to get a little advice, which has been provided. As you stated the matter was closed, I'm tagging this section as resolved; if you disagree we can tag it WQA in progress to solicit additional editor's input. Alternatively you can take the complaint to WP:AN/I. My opinion is concurrent with Nick's: I think it likely you would receive more scrutiny for editing the talk page comments than WVBluefield would for posting them. Gerardw ( talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the attitude and actions of an IP editor, 70.241.26.184, on talk:Jennifer Garner. Recently, another IP editor questioned the relevance of one of the sections in the biography of Jennifer Garner. A registered editor, Emma white20, posted in defence of the section, at which point 70.241.26.184 joined the discussion, supporting the view of the first IP editor and stating that "If it's not rewritten and sourced within the next few weeks, I'll remove it myself". Emma white20 replied to the post by 70.241.26.184 stating in question form their view that, if the section was indeed unencyclopedic and irrelevant, it would almost certainly have been removed a long time ago by one of the experienced and registered editors who regularly police the article. They then did as 70.241.26.184 demanded by editing the section and adding additional sources to the four already there, at which point 70.241.26.184 accused Emma white20 of "bulldozing" and made a claim of apparent greater authority/experience as an editor than appears to be supported by their short edit history. They also posted what amounted to an ultimatum by stating "If the section isn't improved 'in the next day or so', I'll ask for a third, fourth or even fifth opinion on this because I'm not about to roll over just because you have an issue with playing well with others." At this point, I joined the discussion in support of Emma white20's position on retention, and stated that, in my opinion, editing down and sourcing an article didn't class as "bulldozing", while giving ultimatums to other editors and trying to influence their edits could certainly be interpreted that way. 70.241.26.184 then made further accusations of posts against them being "dismissive" and "condescending", which may have been aimed at either myself or Emma white20, although it is unclear who they were actually aimed at. With the discussion deadlocked with two IP editors in favour of deleting the section, and two registered editors in favour of retention, and without any prior open consultation with the other editors involved, 70.241.26.184 then opened an RfC on the matter of possible deletion of the section, in what could possibly be construed as an apparent attempt to gain support for their position. It seems to me that they may be trying to rush Wikipedia process in an attempt to get their way, plus have some issues with their attitude towards other editors who hold opposing views, and I'd certainly appreciate any additional views on their conduct and help with resolving the situation. Gidz ( talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)