Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

Talk page edit warring

Resolved

 – No recent activity. Marking resolved for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There appears to be an edit war on Talk:Left 4 Dead between users LOL, 124.177.71.77 and 139.168.33.237. The reason I bring it up here and not a 3RR is because they are editing eachother's posts on the talk page [1] [2] [3]. If this is the wrong place to bring this up, please let me know and I will post the request elsewhere. [mad pierrot][t c] 03:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited their posts on that talk page; I have only restored the comments that they modified or deleted. I'm taking their actions as obvious vandalism because I've already informed other anons with the same ISP and the exact same behaviour about WP:TPO twice,[4][5] and they've since attempted to justify the modification or deletion of opinions that they seem to dislike by calling them "personal attacks".[6] —LOL ^T/_C 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I didn't see you (LOL) editing other people's posts, just that they are editing yours. Perhaps that means this discussion belongs in the three revert rule section. Like I said, I'm not sure where exactly it belongs. [mad pierrot][t c] 04:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I believe this situation is getting out of hand. [mad pierrot][t c] 04:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

see if you can get the page semi protected. Alternately, admins will block users that edit other users talk page comments. Also, can I recommend templating the IP and including a diff when they do it - that makes it easier to see who has done what and when (even if the anon later removes the template)Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by templating the IP address? [mad pierrot][t c] 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe he means adding warning templates like {{uw-tpv1}}, {{uw-tpv2}}, etc. to the anon's talk page, which could lead up to a quick block after a WP:AIV report. I've actually been abstaining from giving warning templates because their IP is dynamic; yesterday was a rare case where they used the same IP to vandalize talk pages on more than one occasion before changing IP again. I don't think the chances of getting a talk page semi-protected is very high, especially with the relatively low frequency of vandalism, so I think I should make an WP:AN/I because an involved admin suggested that previously. —LOL ^T/_C 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about going submitting an ANI, but I decided to go here first. This issue appears to be more complex than I originally thought, so if you did decide to submit an ANI, I would support you (whatever that is worth). [mad pierrot][t c] 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for one of the IPs involved. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It continues, because they believe I called them "dumb" or a "retard" and because they appear to have a "grudge". Their IP keeps changing so I can't message them on their talk page, and they continually disobey the policies or guidelines I link in my edit summaries. —LOL ^T/_C 00:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that they've created the account [[::User:Moaners|Moaners]] (talk · contribs), but at this point I'd like to have a third-party intervention. —LOL ^T/_C 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's implying that I'm "arrogant" while once again modifying my comment and continuing to push their viewpoint. Does anybody here care, or are they allowed to do that? —LOL ^T/_C 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in the wrong place, which is part of the problem. Requests for administrator attention really should be at AN/I. I would have acted but I can't find any evidence of *recent* disruption by the SPAs/IPs (as in, it appears to have stopped a little over a day ago). I'll bookmark the page and keep an eye on it in case they resume, although I won't be round much over the next few days. Orderinchaos 17:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeking administrator action; I would just like some guidance on how I should deal with this user. Continue reverting without worrying about 3RR (assuming that their edits are vandalism)? Allow them to do what they want? Are their actions disruptive enough to warrant administrator action? Thanks for at least responding, though. The user's time of activity is somewhat erratic, so I expect them to return. —LOL ^T/_C 05:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're back as a dynamic IP, calling other users "fanboys" and altering archives to favour his point of view. —LOL ^T/_C 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You were advised to take it to WP:ANI (or even WP:AIV if they started up again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lar

During an RfC over the creation of the new Project Council, Lar has insinuated that Slim Virgin is a demagogue, and that people commenting negatively on the Council are doing so because they have fallen under her spell. He has persisted in forwarding this view in this thread.

Other editors consider this a personal attack against Slim Virgin. I however view it as a personal attack against all those who endorsed her summary, which is currently 88 editors. Lar's position is in effect a massive failure of good faith because he insists that people endorsing her statement are not in fact expressing their own views. It seems to me that if one follows his reasoning, the effect is to claim that the RfC has no legitimacy and can't therefore have any standing.

Lar has been around for about four years and has served on ArbCom so he understands the importance of AGF and NPA. In this context, where the refusal to assume good faith, and the personal attack, are intended (as I think is clear from the context) to nullify the expression of views made by members of the community, in one of the few and most important means by which members of the community can express their views, I think he is showing the worst possible kind of judgment.

Another editor characterized Lar's remarks as intemperate.[7]

My first reaction to Lar's comment was to seek clarification. When it became clear that he meant what I thought he meant, my reaction was to go to his user page and warn him that if he persists he would be blocked for making personal attacks. It seemed to me at the time that a twelve hour block would be enough to get him to reflect on the implications of what he had written.

Thanks to the strongly expressed feelings of others, especially Mackan79 and Orderinchaos, I see that my own reaction was intemperate. I will strike out what I wrote.

Nevertheless, I think for Lar to suggest that those who have endorsed Slim Virgin's statement - 88 people, including myself - is a personal attack and a refusal to accept that i and others can make comments at the RfC that actually reflect our own views. And I consider it politically dangerous, to the functioning of Wikipedia, for Lar to question the integrity of everyone who disagrees with him at an RfC. If this were any other editor, I would just say this is a personal attack. But coming from a bureaucrat and steward, it is a threat to annul my voice and the voice of anyone else who disagrees with him. This is a massive failure of good judgment. I just want Lar to reflect on this, and retract his accusation of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Lar hasn't alleged bad faith in any of those responding to the RfC, and in fact he clarified that he couldn't be sure about SlimVirgin. I happen to agree that simply alleging demagoguery probably doesn't help, and I'm tempted to say that there could be places where claims of bad faith could present more of a problem. But two critical points: 1.) Clearly an editor must be able to address the actions and motives of another editor as relates to project governance, so long as it is done within the reasonable bounds of civility. 2.) SlimVirgin's approach has been controversial, she has been sanctioned for personalizing disputes, and here she started by suggesting that Kirill was on a power grab.[8] In short sum, if SV can accuse Kirill of a power grab, can Lar not accuse SV in entirely civil terms of the same? One may agree or disagree, but a matter of etiquette I think it isn't. Mackan79 (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am not accusing Eric Barbour of a personal attack. It was he who raised the possibility of Slim Virgin having a personal agenca, in his statement at the RfC (8:45, 15 July). In my rejection of his statement, I asked

And are you suggesting that the many people who endorse Slim's statement were also somehow victims of ArbCom on some vendetta? Or do you think we are all sockpuppets of Slim? Even if we discounted her single endorsement of the statement, there is still a huge number of editors who support it in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[9]

My point was that even if Eric was right - I have no objection to him raising that issue - what about all the other people, people who do not have SV's history with Lar and Kiril and others? Surely the 88 people who endorsed her statement do not share SV's alleged personal agenda. My point was that what is most important in an RfC is not the motives of someone making a statement, but how many other editors endorse or reject that statement.

That is when Lar interjected:

Sarah (and Slrubenstein): I found Demagogue interesting reading. You may as well. Sometimes people of good faith are taken in. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) [10]

Note that Lar was addressing himself to me and another editor who also took issue with Eric's statement. The issue is not what lar is saying about SV, the question is, what is he trying to say to Sarah and me? It seems to me that he is saying Sarah and I are blindly following SV, not expressing our own views, but supporting SVs because we have been duped. Now, I hoped there was another interpretation to this, which is why I asked Lar to clarify himself ... and at this point I invite people just to read the thread, which I linked in my original statement, as it provides the context. The issue i am raising is not Lar and SV's relationship. The issue I am raising is Lar's massive failure to believe editors endorsing SV's statement are acting in good faith. And if we are not acting in good faith, how will the 88 endorsements of her statement be taken? Lar was not out just to discredit SV. Eric was doing that. I asked Eric to consider the implications of hs view for the 88 people who endorsed SV, Lar was responding to my point, and directing a point at me. He was out to discredit everyone else who endorsed her statement. That is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You do seem to be missing this statement: "Given that part of that behaviour pattern includes personal attacks on others, unsupported allegations, half truths, distortions of what others said, and conveniently ignoring past sanctions and admonishments, it fits that of a demagogue. It's important that people are at least aware that there may be ulterior motives (or not), even if they choose not to give that view credence. You're a good demagogue (if you are one) because you are so skillfully able to draw people of good faith and good intentions into your various schemes. You've got most people fooled. You had me fooled for a while too. To be fair, however, it is just possible that you sincerely believe that what you are doing is completely above board and for the good of the project, we can never know for sure. But the outcome of your behaviour pattern is disruption, nonetheless. " (emphasis mine) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I take a personal interest in policy surrounding ad hominen attacks and have little tolerance for what appears to be fast becomming an acceptable practice here at the WP project. In this case however, I don't see the personal attack against you.

I would also add that is would be nearly impossible to discuss, in the context of an RfC, another editor without making a personal comment that could easily be construed as a personal attack. I note that Lar provided SlimVirgin with a detailed summary of his opinion on SlimVirgin's behaviour (noted above too), and even that would be probably only barely enough to warrant being labelled a personal attack. But in your case, nope, I don't see it, sorry. --HighKing (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, BWilkins, I read it. All this means is that this is especially sticky mud that you are throwing. You are saying that it is impossible for anyone to know whether the views I expressed at RfC are my own. That is just another personal attack, buddy.

Any editor has a right to open up an RfC. Some RfCs gain no traction; they are generally ignored and disappear. But this RfC has gained considerable traction. Even fo people who support ArbCom's creation of a new Council, it has provided a space to discuss and debate governance at Wikipedia. I hold that this is a good thing. Now what does it mean to say the RfC is disruptive? Aren't all RfC's disruptive, isn't that the point - to stop or slow down activity at some project space, in order to give a wider segment of the community an opportunity to comment? Isn't that a good thing?

It seems to me that you do not mean "disruptive" in the normal, positive sense. You mean "disruptive and destructive" in the sense that has been used by people who wanted the RfC to end yesterday.[11] But who on earth would consider it disruptive and destructive to the point where the RfC should be shut down against standard procedure? As far as I can figure, the only people who would consider the RfC disruptive in this sense are people who do not want Wikipedia to be run in a transparent way, and who do not want to be help accountable in any way to the community.

Thank you, Bwilkins, for making it clear how politically motivated these personal attacks are. You have proved my point that Lar's pesonal attack against 88 editors is part of a wider atttempt to discredit the entire RfC. As I said, coming from a bureuacrat and steward, this is very chilling. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To HighKing, I guess all I can say is, I have not accused any other editors involved in the RfC of personal attacks, even though I have been in heated debate with many of them. Beyond that, i do not know what to say. The whole point of WP:AGF is that this is a community consisting of people who passionately disagree with one another, yet must collaborate with one another. This necessarily means there will always be debates and arguments at Wikipedia. Isn't the spirit of WP:AGF that there be a minimum amount of respect among people who may be debating in the most heated way? To call someone a fool - to say I and other editors have "been fooled" into holding th views we hold seems to me to be enourmously damaging to the whole projct, corrosive to any possibility of reasonable debate.

When I express a view, I have no problem with people disagreeing or arguing against me. I registered my own statement at the RfC and eight people, including Lar, opposed it. I did not accuse Lar of attacking me personally then, and I am not accusing any of those eight of personally attacking me. I assume they disagree with my statement in good faith, and i assume that they believed I made my statement in good faith. That is how debate should occur here. But simply to say "you have been fooled" is not debate, it is not argument, it is just an excuse to ignore. It is the opposite of the minimum amount of respect AGF asks for, when people are always arguing over something. If anything is disruptive and dangerous to the project ... this is! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lar stated to you I found Demagogue interesting reading. You may as well. Sometimes people of good faith are taken in. At worst, he invited you to consider that you may have been fooled. Later on, he made it clear to SV that he believes that there may be an ulterior motive at play and that he wouldn't be fooled, but these comments were directed specifically to SV, not you. I believe that you are being far too sensitive - to the point that stating that he said you and 88 other editors had been fooled is a bit of WP:SYNTH on your part. --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are picking out the wrong quote. After Lar made that statement to me, I thought its meaning was vagu - which seems to be your point too, so we agree. But what I did next was to ask for clarification:

Really, Lar? And do you think anyone was actually "taken in?" Who do you think was taken in? What is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a number of good editors were taken in by this RfC. It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened, either. Again, read the ref I gave. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So he is not inviting me to consider that I was taken in, he is flat out saying: a number of editors have been taken in. Let's say he is not attacking me, personally. That is not the underlying issue. The fact remains that he considers some number of the people who have endorsed SV's RfC to have ben "taken in." I continue to believe that this is an assault on the very spirit of AGF meant to discredit the RfC itself. I continue to insist that Wikipedia needs healthy debate and disagreement, and saying someone who disagrees with me was "taken in" by a demagogue is not in any way appropriate for the kind of community we have and wish to have. It is an assault on the community. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. He is saying that he thinks a number of editors have been taken in. Note that is not a statement directed specifically at you - he has not said that he believes that you have been taken in. I also disagree that it is an assault of the spirit of AGF. I'd go so far as to say that it's impossible to believe someone was taken in and was not acting in good faith - that Lar acknowledges that editors acted in good faith, but that perhaps they were taken in. Again, I understand that you appear to have taken exception to any insinuation that you may have somehow fallen under a spell, or that somehow your endorsement means less or is sullied by this insinuation. But this is still not a personal attack, and you would be better served by pointing out that your decision was made after reviewing the available material and evidence and is your own personal opinion. And note that perhaps reading between the lines a little, Lar's statement probably springs from his own admission that he believes he was once fooled by SlimVirgin and doesn't intend to let that happen again, and that since he obviously believes that if a mature and intelligent individual like himself can be fooled, then lesser mortals may also have been fooled. (tongue-in-cheek: Note that I am not insinuating that you are a lesser mortal. You, obviously, are not a lesser mortal. But you can probably point to a few...) --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, when you say, "you would be better served by pointing out that your decision was made after reviewing the available material and evidence and is your own personal opinion," I know you mean well - but doesn't WP:Assume good faith mean that this is taken for granted in a dispute? That really is my point.

You suggest that Lar fears being fooled again. I fear that that brushes dangerously close to saying Lar holds a grudge against Slim Virgin. If that is true, I consider his expressing it to be inappropriate for a bureaucrat and Steward. If that is not true, I think you are being a little unfair to him. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this alert meant to be ironic? Reporting someone for expressing views that might be seen as nullifying the expressed views of others, in order to have the views of the nullifier nullified. I don't think the NPA policy is intended to require blocks on folks criticising the words and actions of another; in fact I think if it were, many more people would be blocked in just that RfC. Lar and SlimVirgin have a troubled history. It isn't our place to choose sides in this conflict by silencing Lar's criticism, as we have not silenced SlimVirgin in the past. Nathan ^T 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. If I wanted to nullify Lar's position concerning any negative comment about ArbCom or the Council, I would have filed a complaint after he rejected SV's statement, or after he rejected my statement. I did not. That should be proof enough that I consider Lar free to oppose me or to express his support of ArbCom and the Council. But Lar has gone a step too far in wishing to discredit the RfC as a whole. That is another matter. Our policy holds that an RfC should last thirty days or until a consensus forms. I would not oppose any editor who moved to close down the RfC on either of these grounds. Lar wants to discredit the RfC because he doesn't like where it is going.

There is no comparison between me and Lar. I do not favor closing down the RfC because people have disagreed withme. Lar does want to discredit the RfC because people disagree with him. For you to suggest any comparison between us is disingenuous.

Moreover, nowhere in my petition do I ask anyone to take any side between Lar and Slim Virgin. Read what I wrote. His personal attack is against all those whom he says were duped by Slim Virgin. He cannot accept the fact that many people actually disagree with them, they must somehow have been "fooled." I do not believe he was "fooled" when he rejected my statement- I believe he voiced opposition in good faith and I accept that. All I ask is the same in return: that he accept my statement, and my positions expressed in the RfC, as being my own genuin non-fooled non-duped views. A simple statement from him to that effect would satisfy me.

Wiqiquette does not have the power to silence anyone. That is why I come to Wiququette - I wanted attention given to an assault on my good faith and the good faith of others. I do not want to silence anyone. For you to say so is disingenuous. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I read Lar's comments to suggest that SlimVirgin was being less than honest, specifically by having motives and goals other than what one would presume by reading her statements on the RfC. Lar believes that this deceit, as he sees it, has fooled others into participating as though SlimVirgin's stated motives omitted or obscured nothing. This argument doesn't seem to require you or anyone else to have been "duped" with respect to the substantive issues of the RfC, only her intentions in raising it. It's a broadside on SlimVirgin, not you or anyone else, and as such is part of a continuing and long-term dispute between Lar and SlimVirgin that can't possibly be addressed on WQA. Nathan ^T 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You say it was not directed at me, but I quoted Lar directly addressing me. Please do not twist my words. I file a WQA against Lar, and you explain why a WQA filed by Slim Virgin doesn't hold up. Do you think I am a sock-puppet? I have not filed a WQA on Slim Virgin's behalf. If she ever files a WQA you are free to comment on that. But don't tell me that my WQA cannot be addressed because the conflict between Lar and Slim Virgin cannot be addressed. It is at best a non sequitor, at worst, dishonest. This is not about Slim Virgin. It is about the comments Lar directed explicitly to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As another element to the irony, add this statement: "As far as I can figure, the only people who would consider the RfC disruptive in this sense are people who do not want Wikipedia to be run in a transparent way, and who do not want to be help accountable in any way to the community." That statement seems to be a personal attack against those who believe the RfC has run its useful course, implying they prefer secrecy and impunity and would like to prohibit discussion for their own benefit. Should we open a WQA on Slrubenstein to debate this, or would that be disruptive? (In case it isn't completely clear, I have no intention of doing that.) Nathan ^T 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "should we ..." - does this mean you are one of the people who consider the RfC disruptive? if so, yes, you should feel free to open a WQA on me if you feel I have personally attacked you. But I never mentioned you, and i did not think I was refering to you. Lar of course is free to file a WQA against me. So far he has not. But so far, you and others have acted as if this is a WQA filed against me, rather than one filed against Lar. Isn't that odd? I guess some people are feeling mighty defensive. But this is not how I expected WQA to work. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I see no point to closing the RfC. But by "we" I mean anyone who holds a view of what constitutes "personal attack" that is expansive as yours; both you and Lar have ascribed to others characteristics you find personally negative, why should we entertain a WQA on one but not the other? I suppose I could have written "should someone open" instead. Nathan ^T 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never objected to anyone opening a WQA on me. You suggest that somehow I am a hypocrite, and I do not know why. You are trying to use a phantom to intimidate me. Since no one has filed a WQA against me, all we can say is, no one has filed a WQA against me. When someone does, then address it. But why make up non existant accusations against me? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan repeatedly insinuates that I am trying to silence Lar. But this is how I end my WQA: "I just want Lar to reflect on this, and retract his accusation of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)" Nathan's insinuations are toxic and can only reflect his bad faith and conempt for this process. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lar is an expert on magical snares and feminine wiles. Therefore, his statements about such things affecting an RfC are not a breach of AGF or CIVIL. He is merely stating what he knows. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubestein, can you please, whenever you copy and paste quotes from somewhere else, put them inside quotation marks and italicize them ... it looks right now like some people have posted on this WQA who actually have not. Please fix ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan has summed up my thinking here so well I'm not sure there's anything I could usefully add, except to deplore templating the regulars ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's good to see experienced contributors who so clearly support the project. Thank you all for bringing the endless childish antics from other drama pages here. Tim Shuba (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do try and keep it reasonably drama-free in here :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• In arguments, people are bound to question the points of view of others. Rather than getting into such a huff over something Lar said, including miles of text about how offended everyone is that he questioned someone's thought process, or block threats if he doesn't stop questioning someone's thought process... why not prove him wrong? If there's a personal attack in Lar's comments, I'm sorry to say that I'm missing it. It's a bit of a snipe, I guess, but the reaction here is way out of proportion compared to other vitriol on the page. Is it that hard to address his point directly, that we instead start filing reports and threatening him? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  Luna, how dare you post reason here! You should be ashamed. :P But yeah, when did we start acting like the thought police instead of just labeling people as hypocrites and ignoring them? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• To me it is an obvious personal attack (or more precisely ad hominem argument) when an editor tries to discredit an argument by drawing attention to real or imagined personal characteristics of his opponent. I have been accused of making personal attacks for much less hostility and ad hominem argumentation than Lar is doing here. However I have also been subjected to much harsher personal attacks without feeling a need to file wikiquette alerts or writing six pages of correspondance. A thick skin is a good thing to have, especially since personal attacks if ignored tend to just reflect poorly on the person making them. Personally, when I see someone making snide personal attacks and then try to justify it instead of just saying "Ok, sorry I crossed the line" I'll just quietly think "What an asshole" and move along to more productive things trying to avoid contact with that person in the future. I suggest a similar attitude might be the most productive here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think it was a personal attack, but I do think it was intemperate - that being said, intemperate remarks and comments are being passed by at least 10-15 people on that page (across both sides of the issue divide) and Lar's is at the lowest end of the scale out of those. He is honestly reflecting his own view I think, but may not have fully considered how that would be seen by others. I find myself largely in agreement with Maunus on this one. Orderinchaos 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Not strictly a personal attack, but typical of the (to me personally distasteful) responses that Lars often makes. Several times he has intruded on my talk page with distasteful (to me) remarks. I think that is just his style. Not very tactful or thoughtful, in my opinion. And perhaps borderline troll type statements, geared to generate an emotional response. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Something needs to be pointed out: this dialog from 15 July shows that Lar's comments at RfC talk weren't quite an isolated incident. Casting aspersions upon another editor's motives without substantial evidence is inadvisable. Labeling another editor with a derogatory term is seldom a useful thing to do. It might be justifiable in an appropriate venue as a conclusion to a well-substantiated presentation that uses specific examples and diffs. But on process talk pages, without examples or evidence, it adds more heat than light. Particularly so when the poster asserts that he presents information other editors ought to know, while he withholds a disclosure that ought to come with it: that he has been on the opposite side of a long an bitter arbitration case with that other person. It has been noted that more blatant breaches of wikiquette have come to this board. Yet this is probably the first time that a steward's conduct has come under review here. May this also be the last. Even if Lar is factually correct, his way of raising his concern has been a breach of wikiquette and unproductive. Durova²⁸⁰ 03:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is good advice in part, but I wish it were that simple. In fact I think there is in this type of case a somewhat awkward balance between the presentation of claims and the presentation of evidence for those claims. An editor could certainly in every instance they had a criticism of another editor present the full background information to support that criticism. The problem is that this would often derail a discussion into something only tangentially relevant. On the other hand, editors who find themselves targeted by an accusation should certainly be entitled to request evidence or an explanation. Leaving aside blatant attacks or obviously baseless comments, a sensible balance often observed is to leave this question to the person criticized: do they want to pursue the issue or not? If they do, then a person making such criticism should present the relevance and basis for the claim, or retract it. If not, then the claim simply stands, for people to consider or disregard as they will. In fact the comments of both editors here, challenging the other to take any issue to dispute resolution, tends to show this balance at work, and an issue that probably is not worth pursuing on their behalf. Mackan79 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the venue is also salient, as well as points made by other editors at this thread regarding the underlying logical fallacy. Given enough time, just about anyone who is active in Wikipedia namespace makes a few calls that turn out to be demonstrably wrong. It isn't a respectable argument to say "So-and-so was wrong two years ago, so disregard them." We're all human and imperfect; none of us makes the right call on every occasion, so we parse each others' reasoning in each new situation to see whether this time it holds together. Durova²⁸⁰ 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When lar made his comment, I did not run immediately to WQ, nor did I throw a hissy fit. I asked him to clarify what he meant. In fact, I gave him a couple of opportunities to explain what he meant, and other people commented as well. His response was only to state more firmly his view that I was a dupe. I am not sure if Tim Shuba and BWilkins are accusing me of being a drama queen, but there comments are in line with Maunus' wishing i had a thicker skin. But the way I see it, I have a thick skin. That is why I did not come here right away; that is why I gave lar a couple of chances to clarify his meaning. I know quite well that people can easily misunderstand one another at Wikipedia. I tried to engage Lar like an adult, and give him a chance to act like one. I came here only after it was evident to me that it was not worth trying to settle things directly with Lar. Perhaps his feelings are still hurt from the experience he had with Slim Virgin however long ago that ArbCom thing was. I am sorry if a bureaucrat and steward cannot but the past behind him. Be that as it may, I am not Slim Virgin and to me, at least, I would expect him to act like a grown up, as I assume he acts with other editors. But frankly, if he thinks Nathan's snide and slightly hysterical comments (which ignore what I wrote, or put words in my mouth, which accuse me of saying things I never said) speak for him, then all I can say is: this is really one incompetent administrator who really does need a little time out to assess how to act towards others.

Tim Shuba accuses me of bringing childish antics here. I guess any personal attack can be labeled "childish antics." But I came here because I understood this to be the least antagonistic, least confrontational, setting to seek disinterested opinions about a possible personal attack (yes, possible - that is why we want other views, to know what other people think, right?) I do not mind it when BWilkins and High King tell me they see no personal attack. True, I thought that they misunderstood my explanation, but I know they were giving their honest opinions. Nathan, Shuba and others have only expressed dismissive contempt. Is that what this space is for? Editors have a choice, when they feel someone as attacked them. They can attack back, or they can seek the opinions of others. I came here, presented my case, and the only thing I said i wanted as an outcome was "I just want Lar to reflect on this, and retract his accusation of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)" I was hoping for some kind of mediation or at least (as High King and BWilkins did provide) an unbiased second opinion.

I chose not to attack back - really, I would like to know where, at the RfC, I have committed a personal attack against Lar. Nathan only insinuates, but can anyone come up with a clear case?

I chose not to respond in kind, and instead came here, only to have my own intentions and character questioned. Folks, if that is how you respond, do not be surprised if fewer people come here. Telling someone you think they are over-reacting is one thing. Questioning their good faith in coming here is something else.

The fact remains that Lar is a bureaucrat and a steward and when someone disagrees with him, he goes on the offensive. Wikipedia ought to have a forum where complaints about people given such powers are given a fair hearing, but I guess I should not be surprised when instead Lar's little toadies rush around to protect him. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my comments snide and hysterical; my intention was to argue that (a) what you took as a personal attack against you was, if anything, limited to an attack against someone else (despite that yes, part of the comment was addressed at you in response to your query) and (b) you have a quite expansive view of personal attack, that seems perhaps to apply primarily to comments addressed at you and not by you. You find being described as unaware of the motivations of another as a personal attack, but have no difficulty describing others as interested in secrecy and uninterested in being held accountable. You've further accused me of being snide, hysterical, toxic, a toady, editing in bad faith and contemptuous of this process. While I appreciate the irony, I would prefer if you focused on responding to what I've written rather than insulting me without cause. I've made it clear why I don't think Lar's comments, addressed at you as they were, constituted a personal attack against you. They could reasonably be described as a personal attack on SlimVirgin, but as I've said, WQA is not the forum to address that conflict. Nathan ^T 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While we all may wish that editors express themselves on thorny issues with decorum, there is a clear line between using direct language and the kind of personal attack that WQA is designed to address. This is clearly not a personal attack and this forum is the wrong place for what is a fundamentally different type of disagreement. Slrubenstein, I understand the point you are trying to make, but in the face of numerous uninvolved parties telling you that this is not a WQA issue, it is lamentable indeed that you should yourself indulge in the kind of behaviour you purport to dislike by bandying about accusation of toadyism and cliques. WP:WQA does not exist to provide aggrieved editors with the answers they want to hear. I recommend this be closed and archived. Eusebeus (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

*Cough* "difficult communications with other editors" *cough* It doesn't say "personal attacks". It doesn't limit the discussion to only incivility. This is the first step in problems between two editors, which there is clearly a problem in the above. If anyone closes based on your statement, then they are going against what this forum is for, which would be a mockery of the whole dispute resolution process. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When the editor bringing the complaint resorts to calling others toadies b/c he is not getting the response he is seeking, then this forum is no longer promoting useful discussion. You, Ottava Rima, of all people should know that. I myself will close this discussion if there is no substantial objection from uninvolved parties as I see no resolution forthcoming. Eusebeus (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When an editor is calling other people toadies, then that shows that there is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. We cannot ignore this. It needs to be resolved in one way or another. How to resolve it? I don't know. However, I do see that there is a problem somewhere. Hence why we need to have this open for more than a day. Nothing is solved in a day, two days, or three. Give it time to see how this goes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Ottava. Of course my words of 10:16, 21 July 2009 were motivated in part by my sense that everyone (without even responding to Durova's typically sober comments) really just want to close the books on this.

Lar said something to me that I thought was not right. I asked him to clarify and his clarification to my mind made things worse. I thought I was civil to Lar. I made one rash act, was told by others it was inappropriate, and I did everything I could to reverse the rash act - I thought all of these were done in good faith. I came here precisely because, as you point out, it is the first step in dealing with problems between two editors.

I do not mind being told my interpretation of Lar's statement was wrong. But so far Lar has yet to say that he accepts my claim that my statement and responses at the RfC reflect my considered opinion. This is all I asked for. I do not think that is an awful lot to ask of another editor. Eusebius, do you really think this is an unreasonable request? Honestly?

Ottava, you express the view that this case shouldn't be closed. It seems that you are the only one (aside from myself) who thinks this way. My comments of 10:16, 21 July 2009 were indeed quite harsh but if the consensus of others is that I was wrong even to bring this to WQA, then there is something very seriously wrong with a place that advertises itself as the first place to go in a brewing conflict. Even now, Nathan claims that "You find being described as unaware of the motivations of another as a personal attack, but have no difficulty describing others as interested in secrecy and uninterested in being held accountable;" what is missing from his claim is the dimension of time. When I first came here, I did not claim that anyone was uninterested in accountability. I wish just one person who accuses me of making personal attacks would provide a single quote from my original statement, above, that is a personal attack or that asks for more than an apology. It was only after people here, who I thought would be neutral and disinterested, accused me of trying to silence Lar, that I made the statement about secrecy and a lack of accountability. Nathan, maybe you want to take a look at your first comment to me. All you really say is, (1) I am wrong for trying to nullify Lar's views (when the only view I have asked him to retract is his view that I have been duped, i.e. I did not suggest he retrace any of his views about any of the statements at the RfC); (2) I am wrong for coming her to have Lar blocked (when nowhere in my statement do I suggest Lar should be blocked) and (3) this is not the place to resolve a dispute between Slim Virgin and Lar (when I stated explicitly that I was not interested in anything between Slim Virgin and Lar). So yeah, reading you comments changed my mind about some things, and yeah, Nathan, I did conclude that yours are the snide and hysterical words of a toady.

And even now, Nathan, you misrepresent me. You present my complaint thus "You find being described as unaware of the motivations of another as a personal attack." Nowhere did I ever say this. I defy you to point to where I wrote this. What I wrote was that Lar was attacking SV as a way of discrediting people who had their own reasons for endorsing her statement. I did not write that the personal attack was that Lar said I did not know SV's motives; I wrote that the personal attack was that Lar was suggesting that I had no motives of my own that were sufficient on their own, and well considered, to justify my expressing my own views. The point is not that I do not know what SV's motives are; the point is, I do not care. Tell me you do not agree with my statment at the RfC - fine. Tell me you think I over-reacted to Lar's comment (as othes here have) - well, okay. But your insistence on consistently misrepresent me is not just offensive, it just echoes Lar's position, which is not that my views are wrong but that the just don't count. If you cannot see why one position is acceptable and necessary at Wikipedia, and the other is corrosive to our process, you really are missing something.

I came here in good faith and expected a minimal amount of courtesy. Several people here, while disagreeing with my view, did respond to me with courtesy and I appreciate that. Mackan, Luna Santin, Eusibius and others don't find any merit in my original statement, but I appreciate their courtesy, and others whose names I have left out... Some however did not. And yes, that changes my view of the situation. My comments to Nathan were all responses to Nathan. Were his initial comments really in line with the spirit of WQA? If so ... if so, well, that really is pathetic, folks.

Wow, was I actually accused of not being courteous by this unsigned post? I'd like to see some proof of that please, or else that in and of itself can be contrary to WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept that you, Slrubenstein, apparently feel that suggesting that you may at some point have been fooled in some way is a personal attack on you. I don't understand such a feeling, as it makes absolutely no sense to me, but I accept that you apparently feel that way. I assure you that no personal attack on you, or anyone else, was intended by pointing it out. I gather from the comments here that most folk don't see it as a personal attack on you either. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I very much appreciate your coming here to comment. It is in the hope of helping you with your lack of understanding that I point out that I do not take as a personal attack the observation that I can be fooled or even that I have been fooled at times in my life. I do not take that as a personal attack and you do not need to apologize for that. The only thing I took as a personal attack was the suggestion that my endorsement of Slim Virgin's statement, and my own statement, were posted because Slim Virgin, specifically, fooled me with regard to this RfC, specifically. I want you to know that in my mind Slim Virgin may have noble motives or base motives; I frankly do not care what her motives are. I would have objected to the way the Council was created whether she issued an RfC or not. Moreover, my statement - which you disagreed with, and I assume you disagreed with it in good faith - reflects views I have held since I came here, views which I hold very dear regardless of what any other Wikipedia does or does not say or do. Do you believe that what I just wrote is true (not that my views are "right" but that my views are my own)? That is my main question for you. If your answer is yes - if this is what you meant to communicate with your apology, then I am very glad to accept it and put the whole thing behind us. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I thought that you were insinuating that you did not believe these things - that because you thought SV had fooled me, that you believed that I would not have objected to the way the Council was created if she had not issued the RfC; that my statement - which you disagreed with, and I assume you disagreed with it in good faith - reflects my having been fooled by SV, and does not reflect views I have held since I came to Wikipedia, views which I hold very dear regardless of what SV says or does. That is what I thought you were suggesting, and that is what I found hurtful and defamatory. But if this is not what you were suggesting and if you do not believe these things, if that is what you intended to say in coming here, then as I say I would be grateful to know that, and glad to put this all behind us. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you are acting in good faith or not, but am happy to take your assurance that you are, and that you're acting based on your own beliefs as you see them. It has nothing to do with whether you were or were not fooled about anything in particular. That's not a change in any way from what I said before, but I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I believe he is acting in good faith, as are you. Orderinchaos 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we all have our own demons to battle, Lar. Be that as it may, I know you came here in good faith and I do appreciate what you just wrote, so let's end it here. Of course no one can ever know whether someone is truly acting in good faith, but Wikipedia asks us to make the assumption - perhaps for you a leap of faith. I am glad that you accept my assurance, and my claim that the beliefs I am expressing are my own. As I state at the top of this page, I was not really sure what you meant, when you first wrote about demagoguery, and I wanted clarification. This is the clarification I hoped for. As far as I am concerned, this entire problem between us is now water under the bridge. I hope it is for you too. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all a leap of faith for me to assume that by and large, everyone here is acting in good faith... except when it seems fairly clear they actually are not. For long term contributors, that fortunately is a fairly rare situation. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more or less resolved, so this is my last comment on this page - although if necessary, I'd be happy to continue this discussion to a more collegial conclusion with Slrubenstein on my talk page or his. My comments in this WQA begin from the assumption that Lar was expressing his personal views, which were critical and questioning of SlimVirgin. His particular point, to me, seemed to be that her motives were mispreresented and others were unaware of this fact; I realize that Slrubenstein took this to be an attempt to discredit his good faith objections to the Advisory Council, but hopefully all are now aware that this wasn't the case.

• Slr did, in fact, describe his initial belief that Lar should be blocked for 12 hours. That he ultimately struck his template warning did not, to me, indicate he had repudiated this belief.
• Because Lar was expressing his personal belief that SV was being disingenuous, it struck me as inappropriate that he be punished/censured/subject to the opprobrium of WQA for this belief because Slr saw it as discrediting his views on the RfC - when that was not the case nor the common reading of Lar's comments.
• I found it telling, and still do, that despite the absence of any personal attacks on Slr himself (as determined by any other person on this board thus far), he has seen fit to issue quite a number of such attacks against myself and others. Its a touch hypocritical that a person who initiates a WQA thread believes it appropriate to repeatedly attack respondents and accuse them of various ills. If I were the sort to care about such things, it would be reasonable to request an apology for being called snide, hysterical, toxic, a toady and accused of editing in bad faith. Nathan ^T 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion it would not have been a bad idea to leave this with the intro and first two dot points, without adding the third, which risks inflaming a matter that had already been hammered out. Much of the debate at the place where this whole matter originated was pretty hysterical, there were certainly no shortage of snide comments either, although I don't think any individual editors could or should be singled out for that. Orderinchaos 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Must agree with Nathan. Coming here with a post I'd been composing, in my effortful way, I found the problem resolved—at least I certainly hope it is. But I'll post my thoughts anyway, though I hesitate to open my mouth in an atmosphere that I see as becoming harder and harder to breathe in. The way Slrubenstein was becoming more and more embattled was frankly alarming. Slrubinstein... you threaten to block an editor for giving their opinion? I'm not primarily referring to your first threat, which you "struck out" —"my reaction was to go to his user page and warn him that if he persists he would be blocked for making personal attacks. It seemed to me at the time that a twelve hour block would be enough to get him to reflect on the implications of what he had written"— although in fact it remains alarming even when struck out — but to what I take to be the second threat/slash/insult: "this is really one incompetent administrator who really does need a little time out to assess how to act towards others." (Who really does need a block... ?) Do you realize how increasingly embattled you were becoming—egged on by Durova—(I have no idea why)—towards the end of this mass of text? Please do keep it dialed down. Seriously. These threats are abuse of WP:AGF. They're classic examples of so-called "personal attacks" which are much, much better ignored; Gee... what's happening to this site? Have admins started shooting from the hip now? Are you aware that Lar has a completely clean block log, which you were proposing to smear? That's a serious matter. It's the kind of thing that loses us good editors. It's... primitive. Do you actually notice yourself talking like this, and do you actually want to be on record talking like it?

"I tried to engage Lar like an adult, and give him a chance to act like one. .. I would expect him to act like a grown up, as I assume he acts with other editors... all I can say is: this is really one incompetent administrator who really does need a little time out to assess how to act towards others."

I'm very glad to see that you consider the problem water under the bridge now; I hope it sticks. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Hi Nathan. A couple of points I don't understand about your comment. I don't really understand why you felt the need to fan the flames when it seemed to have been settled. I don't understand why Slr's comment about blocking Lar is relevant. It's not as if he did block Lar, and all he did was say that this was his initial feeling. How you describe Slr's reasoning regarding the non-block doesn't look fair to me. It was never proposed as "punished/censured/subject to the opprobrium of WQA", but as cool down time. I'm flabergasted that someone can get hot under the collar over something that did not happen. Finally, if you feel that Slr has personally attacked you, then I think the best thing you can do is to say which parts of what he said you found personally offensive to you, and ask him to apologise for that offence. It's clear to me that often we cause offence when we don't mean it, and one person's personal attack is another person's innocent comment. Alun (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, kind of the same to you. Why are you trying to keep this going after it's been resolved? I don't understand it. But be fair, Slr never threatened to to block an editor for giving their opinion?. He said he thought about giving Lar some time out to think about how he had handled the situation. Maybe he was wrong to template Lar, I don't know, but he didn't threaten to punish him, as you suggest. As for Are you aware that Lar has a completely clean block log, how is that relevant? Is it now a policy that we don't block people who have a clean block log? I don't think it is "shameful" to have had a block, and I don't necessarily think that those who don't have any blocks at all are necessarily "better" editors than anyone else. It certainly doesn't look like a valid reason not to block someone, or even to threaten to block them. I don't have a problem with you pointing when you think Slr has made personal attacks, that's fair enough. But let's stick to substantive issues here. Slr didn't threaten to "punish" anyone, and he didn't threaten to block someone for expressing an opinion. Just for full disclosure, I was asked to come here and comment by Slr. Alun (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that Slr has expressed satisfaction with my responses, it may be time to take up examining Slr's approach to resolving this matter, as several folk have expressed the view that it has been somewhat lacking in wikiquette. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but stick to the facts, and let's not get bogged down with accusations of threats to block you as a "punishment" for giving you "opinion". Stick to the substantive points, the specific instances of comments that you feel are beyond the pale. I think in fairness you should probably close this thread and start a new one detailing the instances that have troubled you. That way there is a new thread with a more appropriate heading, and also the specific instances can be given at the head of the thread, so someone who wants to comment doesn't have to read all the way through the above thread. Would that be a good idea? Alun (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think both sides need to drop this and focus on editorial content instead of each other. If there are still problems, then follow WP:DR. Dreadstar † 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I second Dreadstar's sound advice. We risk flogging equine remains here. Orderinchaos 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted your close, Dreadstar, as we had a new user just pop in here (apparently canvassed here by Slr) and I think Slr has a bit to answer for... either here, or on my talk page would be fine. Now, if everyone else thinks we're done that would be fine, but I'd rather hear from folks who opined before that Slr was out of line for calling people toadies, etc. rather than from new participants. ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaints re Slr's comments are out there; either he's chosen not to respond, or he's waiting for other people to agree/disagree before he decides how seriously to take them. He's free to disengage, I suppose, but I have trouble squaring that with his strong desire for you to comment here in response to his complaints. If he doesn't reply here within the next day or so, closing this thread is reasonable. Nathan ^T 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would personally suggest that Lar has a wikibreak as an oppose to something more serious.--Launchballer (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment wildly misses the mark here. But since Slr has chosen to ignore the request for clarifications, apparently thinking that he can cast aspersions on all and sundry but doesn't have to answer to legitimate criticism of his own actions, I think this is closable at this point, with a note to future readers, if any, that there are unresolved issues with Slr's conduct in this matter that I choose to let slide. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Benjiboi

User and I are involved in a POV dispute, probably an edit war by now, at Immigration Equality (organization). User repeatedly removed my POV tag [12] in violation of admonishment "Do not delete until dispute resolved." In fact, he deleted the tag in the middle of discussion at RS/N [13] regarding a disputed source. Lionelt (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Put a request that the page be protected.--Launchballer (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? There is nothing from any reliable sources to back up Lionelt's claims. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Lionelt first tried to delete this article then when expanded and submitted to DYK, attempted to derail that process. Now they are doing everything they can to disparage this group by injecting "criticism" with no evidence whatsoever this group has actually ever been criticized. When the John Birch Society's The New American was thrown out as a non-reliable source they looked at digging up any thing else and have tried to use "controversy" as some sort of slur against this group. Thing is, I would welcome anything reliably sourced that did show they were actually involved in any controversy - it would help round out the article and bolster their notability. Just because this group works to enact legislation that would benefit people who are living with HIV/AIDS and LGBT people hardly makes them controversial, at all.
  This latest round was to inject criticism against the Uniting American Families Act without any evidence this group wrote the legislation - likely the legislation has changed, as most legislation does - or is the chief architect. Lionelt WP:Cherry-picked an inflamatory statement from Bill O'Reilly about the legislation as criticism about this group. Sorry, we don't go onto every article and inject criticisms of subject in which they work in such a manner. That would seem to be WP:Soapboxing. If there is any actual criticism of teh group them please share it - I'm afraid they seem a bit too boring as I have yet to see any. If it's relaibly sourced then bring it on. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The New American was not thrown out. It is true Who Then found it not RS, but Squid and Will B thought it was a RS and could be included under the present situation. I don't know why Benjiboi is asserting this untruth. Anyone can read the proceedings here [14]. I guess the question is, when 2 or more editors have a dispute, and an editor adds a POV tag in good faith, and the other reverts in bad faith, what should the sanction be? Is page protection sufficient? Lionelt (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: In spite of this WQA Benjiboi has enlisted the aid of another editor to assist him in continuously reverting the POV tag in order for himself to avoid being blocked. Also, Benjiboi is reverting my {{Controversy}} tag on the talk page! In spite of ongoing edit warring and the article undergoing RfC! Lionelt (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So, what we have is a content dispute, nothing to do with WP:NPA or WP:CIV. Based on that, WQA is not your correct forum.

However, I will add my 2 cents ... having read the article (and having never seen it before, nor general interest in the topic at hand), I would have to argue that a POV tag does not belong - it's quite neutrally written overall. One could argue that the fact that such a group needs to exist is because of a POV, but not the fact that an article about the group exists. Indeed, the topic is only controversial because some people (or only 1 person) without an NPOV believe it to be so. Just because you as a person does not believe in gay marriage, does not mean the topic is controversial.

Barring any proof of incivility or personal attacks, WP:RFC is your correct venue, and no further content discussion should take place here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Being called a liar

Could someone possibly speak to User:Ethan46 about this recent episode where they called me a liar? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASmiley_face_murder_theory&diff=303754856&oldid=302060502 I take this quite personally and asked for proof of this attack. Ethan46 said they didn't need to provide proof and then proceeded to qualify their accusation by redefining "lie". Any help would be appreciated. Padillah (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, I've noticed that you did try to discuss on the article talkpage to no avail. I have provided a warning to the user. I cannot, however, see where you advised them of this WQA filing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - my bad. I'll post a notice now to both their talk page and the article talk page. Thanks for reminding me. Padillah (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User Niteshift36, personal attacks

User User:Niteshift36 is continually engaging in personal attacks and incivility, openly dismissing the views of other editors for their alleged politics as they view them and appears to have a conflict of interest in the current dispute as well. I believe this person should be reminded that their actions here and overall here are not acceptable given Wikipedia policy. Revrant (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:Revrant should review his own part in the matter and see that he hasn't been as "exceedingly cordial" as he claims. Further, his allegation of a conflict of interest in this complaint is not only wrong-headed, but bordering on a personal attack. I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the movie, anyone who appeared in, produced or distributed it. I have zero connection to the movie at all. So his "conflict of interest" allegation is really just a matter of his not liking the fact that I disagree with him. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think Revrant is being a touch thin-skinned here. A review of the section and article talkpage he links shows a robust disagreement. I don't see any particular incivility on the part of Niteshift36 there. I've encountered Niteshift a few times in AfDs and always found him cordial and professional. For the record, I'm a fire-breathing left-winger. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will not reply further to the user in question on the page in question considering the multiple attacks at this point, but I will point out this is a clear violation of the rules, not a misinterpretation or being "thin skinned", there is no grey area on the matter.
• A Conflict of Interest claim cannot be a personal attack, it is defined by Wikipedia as Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
• Personal attacks in question are Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence., Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream., these are just clear violations of the rules, not misunderstandings, most of all the latter has been violated repeatedly and continues to be. Revrant (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What, so now this is about Niteshit36 holding right-wing views and saying the same on his Userpage? Crafty (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't claiming that I have a conflict of interest because of my user boxes or political beliefs "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wouldn't saying "I realize given you act on your own politics to guide your processes when editing..." be in violation of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Just stop playing the innocent victim dude. You're doing the exact same thing you're claiming I am doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a conflict of interest, I was merely correcting his misunderstanding of what Wikipedia defines it as, this is about I didn't say you aren't intelligent, I said you allege that you are. Since I've not seen evidence of it, I can only classify it as an allegation. attacks, now if I have any intelligence at all, I believe I was just told I'm stupid, there is no grey area, it's a blatant personal attack at this point.

I was not discrediting your views in any fashion, I was noting how they may be interfering with your stake in the matter, discrediting, a violation of the rules, would be 'it's merely a smokescreen thrown up by you and a strong indicator of your own beliefs. only to you and your ilk alleged intelligence, Only people of certain types of political persuasions can't comprehend that, simply being told I'm stupid as there is no "evidence" to suggest otherwise is simply an insult and not relevant to that part of the policy.

Considering you are proud of that and in fact expressed doubt that I was not the same way and your user history is quite plainly oriented around defending political entities you find favorable, no, it is not, and I see now that not only are you not attacking me, but what you're not doing, is what I am doing, that's rather hard to chew. Revrant (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I never called you stupid. You were the one who brought your intelligence into the conversation. And you are discrediting my views by telling (not suggesting maybe, but making a statement of fact) me that I "act on my politics" is discrediting my views. Further, not just me, but another editor attempted to tell you that "neo-conservative" and "conservative" aren't interchangeable terms. You dismissed that as simply a 'if you want to tell yourself that' kind of thing. Who would know better than me if I am a neo-con or not? You're telling me that you know better than I do what my own beliefs are. Yet you see that as "exceedingly cordial"? I have no conflict of interest, despite your repeated allegation. You've shown no evidence of one other than the fact that I disagree with you. Did you perhaps mean I have a conflict with your interest? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• My edit history? You mean a couple of hundred AfD's, saving an article here or there about an actress or a bodybuilder? Or maybe the ones about cities or military units? Or did you just scan and see a few articles I edited like Sean Hannity and not even bother to read things like me writing that I don't really even listen to the guy more than about an hour a week? Like I said, you see some user boxes and think you know everything about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • I apologize, apparently I cannot read now and am unable to deduce any meaning from the English language, calling my intelligence as a person alleged is not calling me stupid, I simply have no response to such a claim given this is a case of looking at the sky and being told it's pink, and apparently taking offense to insults directed at my intelligence exonerates you because I brought it up. I believe most editors act on their views, in order for me to discredit them I would have to actually criticize them, which I did not. I felt they were a conflict of interest in the inclusion of this content, partially because the very same content is present on the Religulous article, indeed an identical commercial comparison, yet you do not care, therefore I discerned that there may be a conflict of interest.
    • I never used them interchangeably, I was simply told that I was wrong to use the term and it was invented to demonize, I didn't dismiss it at all, I separated my observation from your opinion via your preference, I hold the same view, but your preference was duly noted. You ask a bizarre question considering all of your attacks have been essentially telling me my own politics in defiance of my assertions, am I to understand I am not allowed to discern your openly available politics yet you are allowed to apply politics to me as an attack while I provide none? The evidence is quite plainly part of your arguments and contributions, however my interest is the betterment of articles, so the answer is yes, I believe there is a conflict of interest in both circumstances.
    • I really am not going to enter into a debate over the political edits and discussions, I have zero interest in that, I am merely noting that the supposition that you edit with politics in mind is substantiated, and you made it clear to me that you didn't believe me when I denied adhering to the same standard, and again, it is not to discredit you, but it is a path of seeking an end to the content dispute by using it as an example of why a third party may be necessary. Revrant (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to take a look at Niteshift36's discussions here at Talk:Sean_Hannity.06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs)

That is not truly beneficial to this proceedings, but it is duly noted as evidence that my supposition of a conflict of interest was not a personal attack, but an observation supported by appropriate evidence. Revrant (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have viewed Niteshift36 preemptively claiming bias possibly in an effort to shield his own conflicts of interest.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for an example of Niteshift36's apparent modus operandi in editing- complete removal of information from an article that reflects negatively on an individual sharing his political views, often claiming the material as BLP or unsourced, apparently making no attempt to compromise or find a readily available source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&diff=303878368&oldid=303878225 The end result is that relevant facts are being removed from articles.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An example of Niteshift36's confrontational tone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Dux&diff=302252137&oldid=30222012#FACTUAL_EVIDENCE I've been reviewing Niteshift36's edits and I appear to see a pattern of conflicts of interest and lack of neutrality - usually resulting in reversions or deletions of information or attempts to delete articles. Often it seems Niteshift36 reaches conclusions about deletion of an article due to personal beliefs then finds a wikipedia rule that might be warped to support such conclusions, but that's just how it appears.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be offended by insults as to my intelligence, but I can readily admit my now past ignorance as to the history of the user in question, had I been aware of these past interactions I likely would have simply kept observing the content dispute and not interacted or attempted to instigate a third party response only to be attacked. Revrant (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now this is some funny stuff: Stargnoc, an editor who only edits very specific articles has been working for months to insert specific material, the same material and has had it reverted by several editors besides myself, comes in to complain about that....on the same night that we reached a compromise on the materiasl. The Frank Dux article? A never-ending battle with multiple sockpuppets that have been blocked who actually are pushing a POV and admin intervention was required. Apparently neither of you have a grasp on what a COI is. The actual COI in that article is the editor (and his sockpuppets) that is trying to insert unsourced claims. What Stargnoc fails to include is a diff like this one: [15], where I searched out actual reliable sources and re-insert negative info with relieable sources, instead of just removing it or leaving it with an unreliable source. Both of you have have been arguing about the same material that multiple editors have removed and both of you claim "consensus" for your position where there is none and have engaged in your own aggressive editing (such as Stargnoc calling me a "liar" and a "hypocrite"). Now you team up to try to run this game. This is actually getting entertaining. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment While this more and more becomes a mere continuation of an existing argument, I will add this for Niteshift36: if you say "you allege to have intelligence, but I have yet to see any", that is indeed a personal attack, hands-down, no questions asked. There is no possible way for it to read as anything other than "I think you're unintelligent". Consider yourself warned, and I advise you to not continue such statements. Meanwhile, anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA. Why don't you all back away from the article(s) in question for a week and calm down. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you can't read it any other way. I have explained what the comment meant as I wrote it. I guess you know my intent better than I do. It appears you only read what is here and didn't bother to read the rest of the material in question. If you had, you would have seen that I was the one who suggested to Stargnoc that we get more opinions and that he did indeed ccall me a liar and a hypoctite. I'm not sure that you can swoop in and tell me "consider yourself warned", as if you are anything besides an editor with an opinion. In the interest of disclosure, Bwilkins is a member of the Article Rescue Squad and has been on the "keep" side of articles that I !voted "delete" on, then the articles were deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In written text, inflection does not get read. So, how it reads is how it comes across. Your comment, regardless of intent reads as a PA. I didn't warn you on your talkpage, and I also warned other users about their comments. The fact that I have an ARS userbox means nothing - I'm sure I've !voted "delete" on some you've !voted "keep" on as well. Stop attacking the neutral parties here, as that won't get you far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't attack you at all. Second, I doubt you voted !delete anywhere I've voted !keep. Third, I must have missed the warnings to the others. Would you mind pointing me to them? Lastly, you read it how you read it. I can't control that part. I do have a question though, why are you so quick to point out that your user box means nothing, but fail to even address that "issue" when the original poster is raising that issue about my user boxes? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have challenged my ability to be neutral, based on a userbox. I did not address the issue of your userboxes, as it's a red-herring in the entire discussion. My warning to others was "anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA", which is one of the major incidents of incivility against you directly. Again, neither of you are getting any talkpage warnings, however, if you would like one, I'd be happy to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't challenge anything. I disclosed any interactions we've had prior to this. Crafty above says we've had interactions before this (which he dislcosed), but I don't recall them. Of course the userbox thing is a red herring, like I've been saying, despite the fact thast much of this complaint is based on them. I guess I missed your "warning" because to told me to "consider myself warned", but kind of glossed over the other one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Outside Editor Comment: First of all, TIME OUT. This is a forum for external comment on a user's civility, not a forum for editors to continue their disagreement. Having said that

• Disclosure: I have not been involved in the editing disputes between User:Revrant and User:Niteshift36. I have been involved in editing the Frank Dux article with User:Niteshift36, where I have found him to be a neutral and reasonable editor.
• The use of attacks by single purpose, anonymous IP attacks on User:Niteshift36 in the Frank Dux forum as "examples" of his incivility is not only irrelevant but intellectually dishonest. A simple glance at the content of the talk page can illuminate that.
• Maybe User:Revrant has examples of incivility that he did not initially post, but the examples that he has provided have demonstrated, if anything, a lack of WP:AGF on his part. I would request that the user review those policies before canvassing this forum.

Djma12 ^(talk) 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no editing dispute.
• No, I suppose breaking the rules can be disqualified by selective qualifiers.
• AGF in being called stupid? I would assume you review WP:AGF and show me where it says you can insult other people, AGF has zero to do with personal attacks, and indeed is qualified in AGF as something you should not do. Revrant (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding my db-person tag on Gillian Tett

There is a discussion about my tagging the article Gillian Tett for speedy deletion on my talkpage (User talk:A More Perfect Onion#Gillian Tett), with heated language about policies and guidelines. My offer of a cup of tea did not defuse the heated language. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a friendly note on their talkpage - I'd stay off of it for now until things settle. I will also let them know of this WQA entry for you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• The editor made another comment on my talk page in this section and at User talk:A More Perfect Onion#Speedy deletion contested: Patrick Mara just after 07:00 UTC today. I suspect he did not drink the tea I offered. At what point should I escalate from WQI to an admin noticeboard? Also, I have been staying away from the Gillian Tett article (except for a minor close-italics tag just a few minutes ago); I think I had the thought before you even suggested it. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: from the way s/he is going at it, s/he is in the frame for a block for edit warring shortly.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

She's hugely soapboxing. As I have now spent time trying to assist her (and been insulted for it) and even made some edits to the article, I can say no more other than this. She doesn't care to know Wikipolicy, and we're all just racist misogynists. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Mike R

User: Mike R removed some sourced content from the Young Republicans article, calling it a "s--- list". Because he gave no other explanation for this removal, and because of the profane nature of his edit summary, I reverted his edit and posted a polite warning on his talk page. He then pasted a rude, template-less uncivil warning on my talk page, using the phrase "s--- list" twice and referring to my action as "asinine". I would like this to be resolved, as I feel User: Mike R has been acting in a disruptive, uncivil fashion. This user has also referred to other Wikipedia users as "jackanapes", here: [16]. I think someone should remind him not to be rude. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not see where you advised the other user of this WQA filing. Second, I will politely suggest that you make use of the "Preview" button - I have noted a few situations where you have 5 or 6 edits in a row, each of which is a minor edit of the previous. Third, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

From what I see, the genesis is a content dispute. User:Mike R removed a possibly inappropriate section of an article with a valid edit summary of remove shitlist. To be on a shitlist is to be on a list of people that you're angered at and/or may take action against. To list a number of non-notable individuals as "supporters" following a controversial situation does appear to be a shitlist. His edit summary was therefore quite clear. Because of this, no warning was needed - however, under WP:AGF I can see how you felt otherwise. It would have been less of a poke to discuss on the talkpage or even on the editor's page, rather than warn. Indeed, this is what Mike R went on to do - he created a section on the article talkpage to discuss the situation.

You will note that he referred to the edit as "asinine" and not you as "asinine" - slight difference, but he did (as per WP:NPA comment on the edit, not the editor. He fully explained his reasoning on your own talkpage. Perhaps he could have AGF'd in your direction, but I see nothing worth additional action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. I had never heard of the term "shitlist" before, and I thought he was simply being profane and disruptive by using the S-word in an edit summary; I didn't realize the term "shit list" actually had a meaning beyond simply "a list that I think is a piece of shit". Sorry about the misunderstanding. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already at ANI. OP notified about forum-shopping

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [17], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Abusive User

This user is continually using abusive language to myself and other users now here. Some excerpts of what he's saying:

"If we go by your logic via that empty little head of yours..."

"Are you frickin crazy?"

"Professionalism my ass. You cunts are the direct opposite of it."

I admit I am also being rude to him at times, but he's escalating it beyond rudeness to abuse, and it's not just me he's speaking to this way anymore. Can someone sit him down and have a chat with him please? The Clawed One (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by others does not excuse the incivility of someone else. He's new. He's been warned, I gave him one my handy-dandy personalized welcomes, just for the uncivil type of new users. I anticipate his reply in this forum - and I'll keep an eye on him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what you all do here. I just won't stand for someone insulting me to no end, for NO reason when I simply present a relatively normal question. As for my comments, sure. Whatever. They were really rude. I acted like a prick towards one person. He acted like one towards a dozen. Now, do you see any sort of reasonable flaw with just me getting the blunt of this? I thought so. :< --JJimbo3 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This most likely isn't much of my business, but I'd like to throw my word into this; The Clawed One has been anything but professinal in his approach by attemtping to ride on some sort of non-existent authority. User JJimbo3 simply presented a specific article with a question, but was met with rudeness and harassment by user The Clawed One. At the same time, I stepped in to try and calm the situation down before the two escalted it into a content war, yet I too was met with an inexcusable attitude and rudeness by The Clawed One. I believe both sides of this fight need be analyzed. JJimbo3 has been very unpleasant in this way of dealing with this, but on the flip side none of it would have escalated to this if The Clawed One hasn't been thinking more logically and professionally. --Zeromus911 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. You say what you want to, I'll stick by my end. --JJimbo3 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say, now that I think about this, I find it interesting you two joined within days of each other and post at almost the same time over and over...as for my conduct, I act rude, I don't curse and swear at people and call them cunts. The Clawed One (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting coincidences occur, but I already stated, I didn't "join" recently. I believe I already explained it back at the Dissidia article. I don't want there to be any tension, especially when I'm simply trying to be a mediator. From the get-go, I failed to understand your hostility towards me personally. Perhaps you should enlighten me; enlighten us, why you would lash out against someone who's just trying to be logical and calm everyone down. --Zeromus911 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Except you haven't been a mediator, you've largely taken JJimbo's side of things and just reiterated his opinions in a calmer tone. The Clawed One (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. I've sided with both of you if you actually paid attention. Both of you were right at certain parts, and wrong at certain points. All I was looking for was a middle ground. You know, now that I actually think on it, it's kind of scary how similar you two are, both aren't satisfied with coming to a logical resolution and only wanting what you want individually, hehe... Anyways, I'm really not looking to make enemies or anything, though I can't say the same for you or JJimbo3. All I want is a common ground. --Zeromus911 (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The key difference is that what I want for the article is what the Admins both here and elsewhere have agreed is what should be done. The Clawed One (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And admins tend to decide on majority decisions. I get the feeling that particular article didn't get the same amount of elbow room as a dozen others. Perhaps you should try to think more logically and reason, instead of pretending to be the Wikipedia Hero of Justice and Righteousness on behalf of the admins. In any case, I haven't made any edits or recommendations whatsoever on that article. I've said my piece on the matter, and I really do hope I don't get any more needless static for speaking my mind out. If you want to keep doing this the way you have been, I don't think I need to tell you that you'll be getting angry and frustrated all too often from eager fans. Just know that there are different, more reasonable methods to avoid the frustration. In any case, I really don't want to be involved in this any further... --Zeromus911 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jjimbo3, there's massive problem with your logic: as I mentioned earlier, incivility in others NEVER excuses your own incivility. Think of it as the "two wrongs don't make a right" theory. In Wikipedia, we have official ways of dealing with incivility - you bring it to forums such as this one for low-level incivility that may have a chance of being resolve early, or WP:RFC/U if it's a pattern of abuse, or WP:ANI when someone needs an immediate block. Your role as a Wikipedia editor, when confronted with incivility directed at you, is to take it to the right forum early, and not to respond in-kind. There is never, ever, ever any reason to call ANY editors "cunts". I was truly hoping you would have been wise enough to have struck those comments, and at least acted a little bit sorry. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Editor Jjimbo3 blocked 31 hours for gross incivility. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JJimbo3_-_escalated_from_WQA for further information.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

This alert is regarding interaction between Kryolux (talk) and myself in editing Ellenville, New York. First notice of uncivil behavior was given in response to this message. Editor later edited Ellenville's article leaving an uncivil edit summary. --JBC3 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you focus on the correctness of the edits rather than the signs of annoyance the other editor is showing? I notice that the talk page of the article contains no discussion whatsoever at this point. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Looie for hitting the nail on the head! Instead of FIRST bringing his FALSE assumption to the talk page for discussion, JBC3 precipitously and arbitrarily ASSUMED a copyright violation where none existed. HAD HE "focused on the correctness of the edits" instead of just assuming and acting in a high-handed and patronizing manner, and then getting all prickly about my "signs of annoyance," this could have been avoided. His rudeness and incivility (plus hypocrisy for telling ME to use discussion pages first, but not doing likewise), from MY perspective, is just as viable, but I didn't go whining to the Wikiquette gods about it. (For more details on MY perspective, see MY talk page.)

If you tell me HOW to erase the "uncivil" part of the summary, I'd be happy to oblige. Kryolux (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)