Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fainites (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 24 July 2011 (→‎Misleading piece of article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active alerts

    QuackGuru

    QuackGuru has left several posts ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) on my talk page related to an extended dispute on Talk:Pseudoscience involving a large number of editors. I pointed out that the issue was not personal but involved the whole editing community for that article and I clearly requested that QG stop posting on my talk page.[6][7][8] I am quite responsive in the article talk page and I see no need for QG's personalization of the disagreements by posting the same arguments on my talk page. Today another long posting appeared.[9] I find QG's talk-page style to be dogged, repetitive, not-hearing, and tenditious. It's difficult enough in article space. I have been hiding QG's posts to my talk page but I'd rather not get them at all. Are there remedies that will keep QG's posts off my talk page? Jojalozzo 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jojalozzo, do you agree you will stop violating core Wikipedia policies? What is the abbrevation dnft stand for? Why did write in part: If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast.? QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that QuackGuru does not actually communicate but only leaves variants of the same announcement on your talk page (basically saying that he is right and you are wrong and your responses worthless), I think you can simply follow the same approach that I did here. Presumably (I haven't checked), after that he went around telling people behind my back that I was wrong and he was right and I wasn't responding at all, but at least he left my talk page alone. Hans Adler 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim is supported by the source. I recently explained this in detail on the talk page. Do you agree you won't replace sourced text with OR again or delete sourced text from a mainstream peer-reviewed source. See WP:WEIGHT. Your previous approach was not productive. You failed to explain why you are against including the mainstream source. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither this nor my talk page are the proper place to conduct a specific discussion about editing Pseudoscience. Here we are discussing how to help you recognize boundaries and to limit discussion to locations where the editors involved can participate. Jojalozzo 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum verbosium, begging the question and straw man. Also: When did you decide that trying to cause nervous breakdowns in serious Wikipedia editors is more fun than beating your wife?
    You should have been banned per WP:COMPETENCE years ago. I am pretty sure if you hadn't simply stayed out of the recent Arbcom case which you caused and in which you were named, without any excuse or explanation whatsoever, you would be banned by now. Hans Adler 15:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to said ArbCom case please? DigitalC (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. QuackGuru's current baseless complaints are the continuation of events in February/March that only he is still interested in. At the time, Ludwigs2 took him to ANI because of the disruption, but Sandstein decided to shoot the messenger, leading to the Arbcom case. QuackGuru was named as one of four officially involved editors, but played dead. The evidence page was blanked. For an overview of QuackGuru's disruptive activities over the years (not exclusively WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE issues but also more active disruption), see here. Hans Adler 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links. DigitalC (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Hans Adler. Take QG to ArbCom again please. Why they didn't deal with him when they had the chance I don't know, but they need to do so- unless he can be community banned. BE——Critical__Talk 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done, see WP:AE DigitalC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So far the responses here have been from those with their own problems with QuackGuru. I would appreciate hearing from uninvolved third parties with expertice in wikiquette. Thanks. Jojalozzo 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am. (at least I'm uninvolved) BE——Critical__Talk 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, you are involved (in the content dispute) and have refused to collabrate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling you I don't want to be involved doesn't equal involvement. I made one comment on the Pseudoscience talk page, months ago. BE——Critical__Talk 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved editor's comment: I recommend a stern warning on QuackGuru's user talk page, reminding him or her about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, along with a notification that making a similar remark ever again will result in a two week block (and 4 weeks if it happens again, 8 weeks for a 3rd time, and permanent block for a 4th time). Uncivil behavior cannot be tolerated. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That won't work. It's not really WP:CIV is it? It's tendentious editing with an overall disruptive effect. If you read above, you will see it's already gone to WP:AE. Fainites barleyscribs 21:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIV says, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. " Continuing to barrage someone's talk page with clearly unwanted commentary despite being asked to stop is clearly NOT treating the "other with consideration and respect". We need to encourage and enforce respectful behavior, and discourage disrespectful/uncivil behavior like this, for the good of Wikipedia. People need to know, unquestionably, if they don't treat others civilly and respectfully, they will get blocked. I stand by my recommendation. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chesdovi

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This is marked resolved. It's not appropriate venue for the two of you to continue your petty dispute and bad beviours. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Chesdovi admonished, both editors requested to go to mediation on their underlying dispute
    --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser (talk · contribs), I'm not sure but shouldn't you be pursuing this at AE? It sounds pretty clearly like an I/P-related dispute if you're being called anti-Palestinian and Zionist on account of your edits.—Biosketch (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally wouldn't want to do so, because that would look as though I am gaming the system to gain the upper hand in the issue the discussion is about, since it would be likely to lead to his being blocked. Not that I would consider that a bad thing in itself. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then as a note to Chesdovi (talk · contribs), calling another editor "anti-Palestine," regardless of the circumstances, could very well be considered a violation of your most recent topic ban. You had best retract any comments made in that spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find his recent comment "The inconsequential views of Debreseer can be consigned to the recycle bin" [10] also offending. Isn't somebody going to take some action based on Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Debresser (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope someone does (I'm not an admin), but my biggest gripe about WP is the lackadaisical attitude about enforcing WP:NPA by the admins. My personal theory is that many people (and admins are people) relish insulting others so much, they feel too hypocritical admonishing others for doing so. It's really sad, because WP culture would greatly benefit from a zero-tolerance policy regarding personal attacks, such as these. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also been disappointed in the past by the inaction of admins in the face of personal attacks. I hope this time will be different. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. If you are talking about the subject we disagree upon, that is being decided on WP:Cfd. The only other issue is WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL, which I am here for! Debresser (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cfd will resolve itself. But I've seen your dispute become rather personal and neither of you is coming out of this smelling of roses. This Wikiquette report is a one-sided attempt to resolve a two-sided thing. Likewise the ANI stuff I've seen. If you both really want to sort this out properly and you can't just do it yourselves, get a mediator. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are strictly one-way. I am civil and do not personally attack my opponent. This is an unrelated problem, and I like it to be treated as such. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you think that an admin satisfactorily resolving this WQA without more general settlement of your broader dispute/s which has scattered "he-said,she-said" accusations around the place is likely? Will be enormously helpful? --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL are very clear about it that they are policies in their own right, and should be treated in their own right. You can't become uncivil or make personal attacks and then say "oh, but we disagree, so now I am allowed to behave this way". I am surprised by such a question from an experienced editor. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, you won't find many stronger advocates of NPA and CIVIL than me. I just think you should bundle it all together - the experience of an experienced editor says that otherwise, all you're doing is wiping up the spill at the edges. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, our disagreement is being fought out at Cfd. But the instances of incivility and personal attacks have to stop. If you'd care to take care of that, please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    False claim by Debresser: "Accusations of violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are strictly one-way." Chesdovi (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that there is an overall context of dispute and tit-for-tat reporting, with accusations of wrongdoing on both sides, I suggest this WQA is closed and both parties advised to get a mediator. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Then this is just going to be another of those instances where admins decline to take care of incivility and personal attacks. I alone can give you an impressive history of such cases. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the two other editors who commented here have agreed with me. It seems only admins have this attitude of "let them fight it out however they like". Debresser (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Chesdovi? Behave yourself properly or you'll be blocked. Now, go settle your dispute. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Born2cycle and User:Biosketch. I meant uninvolved editors. To whom was that comment addressed, about behaving properly or be blocked? Debresser (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed it to Chesdovi. It begins by addressing him. Can we close this now? --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All this reluctance to admonish someone for blatant violation of WP:NPA and/or WP:CIVIL is both baffling and sad.

    Say a neighbor Jack breaks into neighbor Jill's house and steals $100. Jill calls the police and shows them a video of the burglary. The police go to Jack's house to arrest him, but Jack shows them a video of Jill breaking into Jack's house and stealing a TV. Do the police and DA say "he said, she said" and throw up their hands? Do they look for the "big picture" and discover that this is the result of an ex-lover's quarrel? Or do they just do their job and enforce the law in both cases independently?

    If there is evidence that an editor violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then he or she should be admonished, warned, blocked, etc. for doing so, independent of who they attacked or what that person may have done to them, because there is no justification for this kind behavior. Period.

    Now, I'm a completely uninvolved editor here, and I'm asking any admin taking the time to read this to please do what's best for Wikipedia - enforce the rules about how we're supposed to treat each other - respectfully, no excuses. Not just in this case, in all such cases. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I admonished Chesdovi three hours before your impassioned plea. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I will behave myself. I will have to be extra careful as I don't want to be blocked if I happen to offend Debresser. (I did not come here after Debresser used a revolting, crude and base profanity to descibe my editing or when he called me a "prblematic editor".) Chesdovi (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the term "problematic editor" for an editor who has been blocked and topic-banned and who makes unilateral changes and creates unilaterally whole category trees is not offending, but actually an understatement. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be true and even an understatement, but that doesn't mean it necessary to say it. And if it's not necessary, then it is disrespectful and not conducive to fostering civility at Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do keep that in mind, and use this understated term only in discussions about Chesdovi, not as a derogative. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I got 72hr topic banned because of the way Debresser went about addressing the "Palestinian rabbis" situation. The current ban has nothing to do with editing, but due to my ill advised response to the report filation. I dispute all but one of my blocks which occured in 2006. I, unlike Debresser, have never been blocked for harrasing other editors or directing personal attacks againt them. Please see [11] where Debresser calls the unforgivable addition of "white lines" as a "problem" of mine. Chesdovi (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor problem, surely, but an experienced editor should know better than systematically adding 4/5 whitelines before a {{Clear}} template. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually to help inexperienced users, lest they continue the thread after the {clear}, thereby disrupting the flow. As a person concerned with minor aesthetics, I am sure you will understand. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the least. And don't bother to reply. No reason to have the last word in every discussion. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [12]. You stop first. Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Dave1185

    Could someone please tell this guy to leave me alone? He's gone a bit mental after I changed the word "explained" to "said" [13]. Turns out he really likes the word "explained" and accused me of vandalism for making the change, and then, bizarrely, of original research. Now he is repeatedly posting obnoxious templates to my talk page.

    If this is the normal way new editors get treated, this place is an utter disgrace. I do hope it turns out that this "Dave1185" is more obnoxious than most. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Start by tempering your language. When someone asks you to stop calling people pricks this is not the right response. Having reviewed the edit I think you have a case for "said" or "stated" but we really need the original source to get the exact words. There was nothing to stop you respecting WP:BRD and raising the proposed change on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So the fact that I got really pissed off at the ridiculously rude behaviour somehow justifies the ridiculously rude behaviour, does it?
    And we do not need the original source "to get the exact words". Copying and pasting does not make a good encyclopaedia. Changing "explained" to "said" is utterly uncontroversial and I can't believe the Kafka-esque absurdity that's followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:CIVIL; loosing your temper and swearing just weakens your position, especially name calling against other editors.. Otherwise wikipedia depends on reliable sources so what they say is relevant if there is any question as to the words you use. Now I suggest you strike all the swearing, and make your case on the talk page of the article concerned. I'll put the article under watch so that at least one other set of eyes is looking at it. Bringing the case here without exploring that option is I think a mistake. --Snowded TALK 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Dear 2.220.201.70--If you have a diff of someone else's "ridiculously rude behavior" then please post it here so we can see the full story but so far the only diff I see is one which illustrates your rude behavior. In any case, rude behavior and foul language directed at another editor is never justifiable in any situation.(see WP:NPA) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, at least I have it amply confirmed that if a new editor makes a constructive change, they can expect a pile-on from all sides, accusations of vandalism, plenty of admonishments to learn all the acronyms that everyone else does, and general disbelief that anyone could possibly be rude to an anonymous editor. And it's good to know for sure that outrageous lies from people with usernames are permitted and indeed encouraged, and that it's fine to accuse someone of vandalism and original research for changing "explained" to "said", and that no-one will dream of reining in that kind of behaviour. I had no idea the atmosphere would be so petty, cliquey and vindictive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use indentation. In fact you have been treated the same way as any editor who pours out a torrent of abuse. Better in some ways, many an editor has received a block for less. You need to calm down, use reasonable language and make your case like anyone else. --Snowded TALK 14:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD applies, but the use of {{welcome-anon-vandal}} and original research templates isn't justified here; neither are the [14][15] personal attacks by the anonymous user. As for the cause of the dispute, I prefer "explained" to "said" - it isn't about whether the explanation is believed, it's the motivation for Lee to say what he said. Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a relevant matter: Has User:Tasc0 ever had any sockpuppets? --Σ talkcontribs 02:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPI has been created, to be safe. --Σ talkcontribs 03:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How completely insane. Let me remind you - I changed "explained" to "said". I got accused of vandalism, by someone who must obviously not know what vandalism is. The same person said that using the word "said" amounted to original research. His two dishonest claims were evidently made because he didn't like the word "said", for no reason that I can even begin to imagine. Does he get criticised for lying? Does he get reprimanded for accusing new editors of vandalism? Does he get a talking to for having no idea of the meaning of "original research"? No. I get criticised for getting angry, because apparently my anger justifies the lies that provoked it. And not content with bringing the farce this far, you decide I must be someone else who you also didn't like?

    I seriously can't believe what a poisonous atmosphere you've created here. You've got this policy, apparently, about not biting new editors. You should scrap that policy because it obviously means nothing to any of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion there's no difference between "explained" and "said", but it is likely that you would've been treated more nicely if you just ignored or removed the warning and didn't call everyone "prick". --Σ talkcontribs 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So when someone makes dishonest accusations, and the accused gets angry, the accusations wouldn't have happened if the accused hadn't got angry. Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on whether you can control your anger or not. ⚖ (talk | contribs) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you being deliberately stupid and provocative or can you genuinely not see how ridiculous that is? Perhaps I was writing in too subtle and clever a way for you. Let me put it more clearly so there is no chance of misunderstanding. You're blaming me for someone's lies, on the grounds that I got angry about those lies. You're saying that the guy wouldn't have lied, if I hadn't got angry about him lying. Do you see the logical issue here? And neither you nor anyone else seems to have thought it might be an idea to tell the guy not to lie. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As a completely uninvolved outsider, I understand that anyone who posts something here is subject to behavioral review too, but I don't understand the apparent penchant, at least in this case but I don't think it's an isolated one, to hardly look at all at the behavior of the one who was originally accused, make a clear judgement about whether that behavior was inappropriate, and, if it was, decide what should be done about, and do it. Instead, there is all this focus on the accuser's behavior (about which nothing is done either). It's this kind of response that makes this board close to useless, and hurts Wikipedia.

    As to what happened here:

    1. IP makes a minor edit, changing "explained" to "said", without a summary [16].
      • NOTE: edit summaries are recommended, not required.
    2. Dave1185 reverts back to "explained", without a summary [17]
      • Reverts without explanation are, or should be, frowned upon.
    3. IP reverts back to "said", with reasonable summary/explanation: "Using the word "explained" implies that you believe that explanation. "said" is neutral" [18]
      • Ideally perhaps it would have gone to D for Discussion in BRD here, but another revert with a good explanation like this is not unreasonable, considering the revert had no explanation.
    4. David1185 reverts again, this time with an edit summary explanation that is arguably dubious: "original text quoted was "explained", nothing remotely near to the word 'said'" [19]
      • That explanation is arguably dubious. The word "explained" is "nothing remotely near" to the word "said"?
    5. IP reverts again, with more explanation: "That's pathetic. The link in the reference doesn't even work. "Explained" is not neutral, "said" is. Are you seriously saying that the guy didn't "say" this? Did the words just appear in the cosmos direct from his brain?" [20]
    6. David1185 reverts again, no edit summary, but also appears to fix link [21]
    7. At some point (I didn't figure out exactly where in the chronology), Dave leaves the big warning on the IP's talk page[22], and the IP responds inappropriately, and angrily.

    Now, Dave1185's contribution history goes back to 2008. He (I'm assuming - Dave) should know better than to engage with an apparent newbie like this on several levels. He should be warned against:

    • reverting without explanation,
    • reverting with dubious explanation,
    • engaging in an edit war instead of taking it to discussion per BRD, and
    • putting big overblown template warnings on user's talk pages.

    All of that is disrespectful and uncivil, and this needs to be made absolutely clear to him on this talk page, preferably backed up with a warning that he'll be blocked for, say, 2 weeks if he treats anyone else like this again.

    The IP should also be given advice, as he was above. Unfortunately all that was done without addressing Dave's clearly uncivil behavior.

    But I would add that the IP should be warned that he will be blocked for 2 weeks if he reacts inappropriately and uncivilly like that again.

    Are we serious about civility, or not? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Born2cycle, for your level-headed and sensible comments. It is very nice indeed to realise that not everyone here will join a mass attack on an IP for making a constructive edit, and I appreciate your reasonableness. But I fear you may be in a small minority. They have now changed the article to their preferred version and protected it, dishonestly claiming that there is "persistent sockpuppetry". The behaviour of this clique of editors really is disgraceful, and it looks like their behaviour is being largely condoned. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually looked at the source, and by my reading neither explained nor even said is supported by it. I explained this on the talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Perfect at Sunrise

    After attempting to speak with this admin on his talk page following this discussion there, I was told by him that his highly rude, insulting and clearly uncivil language toward others is perfectly fine. He believes that it's acceptable to tell polite, good-faith fellow editors that their comments are "useless," "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk" and "meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish," among other terms.

    When I tried to discuss this with him, his response was: "Those aren't insults; they were pieces of matter-of-fact criticism."

    I don't think any reasonable observer would think calling someone's good-faith efforts "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk" and "meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish" is polite, constructive criticism. "Gibberish"? "Junk"? These are insults, plain and simple, and they were not necessary. There are diplomatic ways to offer constructive criticism. His behavior is arrogant and bullying.

    Secondarily, you'll also see in that discussion that he throws his weight around announcing that he is as an admin in an editorial disagreement in which he is simply an editorial peer.

    As a six-year Wikipedia editor with much experience, I don't bring up these points out of delicate sensibility or naivete. I work with many wonderful editors and mature, diplomatic admins who understand we're all volunteers and who treat us with normal, collegial respect. Insulting other editors' good-faith efforts as "gibberish" and "junk," and becoming defensive when this is pointed out — I don't believe any editor, much less an admin, has a right to insult others that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenebrae inserted himself as what he called "a mediator" into a discussion about FUR for non-free images on the user talk page of FPaS. Mediation on wikipedia is a mutually agreed process: at no stage did Tenebrae seek agreement from FPaS. Tenebrae shows some misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. There are wikipedia rules for use of non-free images. In addition criticizing edits and the remarks contained in them is not a personal attack or insult. On the other hand Tenebrae told FPaS on his user talk page that, unless he was a copyright lawyer, he had no business adjudicating or tagging non-free images. His exact words were, "I would point out that unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, then his opinions are, by definition, amateur opinions, and before any deletions are done to what I consider careful attempts at FUR that we have an unaffiliated third-party admin weigh in. Unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, his absolutism is unwarranted — as is his personally chasing down my contributions after I posted something with which he disagrees." All these remarks were inappropriate. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is often typical when one cannot defend someone's action that they attempt to turn things around and attack the accuser. None of what Mathsci has said here anything to do with FPaS' rudeness and language. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that will do. This isn't a one-sided process; you own behaviour is open to scrutiny. If you're involved in something more than a simple question of incivility you probably want WP:DRN, per the notice at the top of this page William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not finding evidence of significant incivility by FPaS, and this report doesn't accurately reflect the actual dialog. For example, the "useless" comment, in context, is actually "Your advice is useless as long as it doesn't touch on the actual issue," and the "I'm an administrator" comment was in response to an "I've been an editor for six years." Gerardw (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So referring to the other editor's good-faith efforts as "gibberish" and "junk" is OK, then. I'm very surprised at that. If you believe that's a perfectly civil way to speak to someone ... well. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the case at hand, it is not uncommon to find that good-faith efforts are "gibberish" and "junk." See also WP:COMPETENCE. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the ages of my peers this thread, and it's possible that schoolyard taunts are an acceptable generational thing, like certain African-Americans using the n-word as acceptable vernacular. Perhaps rudeness is more highly valued for its directness than is diplomacy. Still, I'm surprised no one here seems willing to construct civil, alternate ways of getting a point across.
    "Gibberish"? How about, "I'm not sure you're being direct and clear. What specifically are you trying to say?" Aside from treating a peer with respect — which I have seen little of here, and lack of respect and disdain is unacceptable in civilized social interaction — this also compels the peer to sharpen his thoughts and learn thorough this mentoring phrase. Mentoring is beneficial for Wikipedia's long run, while biting the newbies is frowned upon, as is violating the tenet Wikipedia:Dick.
    "Patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk": How about, "Your rationales are not specific enough for these particular images. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and discuss on this article's talk page why you think your image complies with each point." That's constructive criticism, not merely throwing about insulting labels — which is easy, since with labels one doesn't have to think.
    I fully accept that I'll be laughed at for daring to suggest such old-fashioned ideas as speaking diplomatically in a way that's constructive and not belittling, in a way that mentors, as any organization must to do continue surviving without becoming calcified. I've found that people who like to insult and throw their weight around have insecurity and maturity issues — because secure, well-grounded people don't need to insult others. In fact, they're glad to help others. So, please, tell me how I'm wrong in thinking that we should treat our peers with the same politeness and respect we'd like them to show us. You might not be familiar with that concept, but it goes by an old and long-established name.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the contexts. Emphasis added:
    And of course, you won't keep any image as long as you can't be bothered to spell out your reasons of why you think you need them in a reasonable, correct rationale. Not the kind of patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk you placed there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    There is nothing incivil about pointing out that adding meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish won't help these images be kept. Adding such pseudo-rationales is highly disruptive, and if he does it again, he'll be blocked. Also, as long as this editor still wants images just because otherwise the page looks too boring, there is simply no case to compromise over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely uninvolved editor comments: I've reviewed the comments made. Rude and clearly uncivil remarks such as those made by Future Perfect are harmful to Wikipedia, regardless of who makes them, about whom, or how accurate and appropriate they are sincerely believed to be. They are rude and insulting. Any editor who makes such remarks needs to be warned and admonished. But an admin - an admin should clearly know better.

    This should not be tolerated at all of admins, and the message about that needs to be clear. Uncivil behavior will continue to be the norm that it is unless we get serious about ending it. I propose a two week block of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour." 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no quicker, fairer or more effective way to move these disputes towards resolution than to warn those engaged in uncivil behavior that they will be blocked if they don't immediately and completely stop. Period. Encouraging people to ignore uncivil behavior -- which seems to be the most popular suggestion around here - resolves nothing. It's putting our heads in the sand.

    Nothing will make this page (and ANI and many others) see much less activity than clear and strict enforcement of zero-tolerance for uncivil and disrespectful behavior. That will give everyone more time to improve the articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, if an admin happens to see such behavior on a talk page he is free to issue the warning and anyone can start an ANI than can result in a block. It shouldn't matter if the incident happens to be learned about here. I just think that admins should be held to a higher standard and should not have to be reminded about being civil and respectful... they are setting examples that others do follow. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Carson101

    Since this user has asked me to get outside assistance here, I am doing so.

    Here, I responded to a comment made by this user. The first comment in that responds to a comment that he made here (note that this comment was edited here).

    In response, he posted here, accusing me of "making this up", which he said was "quite sad really", and accusing people who I have met of being "ignorant". I responded here, asking him to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The response here reiterates the accusation of lying.

    Now, I find this inappropriate, but were it not for his request that I take it forward I would probably have left it with a note reiterating WP:AGF and asking him not to post on my talk page again. But since he has asked, could someone take a look at this to see if this is to be considered appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia, and if not, have a word? Thanks, Pfainuk talk 17:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd recommend just ignoring the comment and moving on. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this is why uncivil behavior like this is so rampant on Wikipedia talk pages - because people choose to tolerate it by acting as if it didn't happen. I recommend a stern message on Carson's user talk page, reminding him about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and notifying him that if he makes uncivil remarks again he will be blocked for two weeks. That's how you change the culture from being uncivil to being civil. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to make something clear. If I told someone I came from Scotland and they rolled their eyes at me I would consider it an act of ignorance on their part. As far as him making things up? If someone is going to relate their personal experiences in a discussion in which he is trying to convince people to see his point of view I will take it with a pinch of salt. If I don't believe it that is my prerogative. If he gave reliable sources in his argument I would of course look on it differently. One more thing. I did not ask Pfainuk to take this here. I told him if he thought I was being uncivil then he should make a complaint. He obviously thought it was. I beg to differ. Carson101 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't see that this is uncivil, then you might reread WP:CIVIL, especially the part where it says that we "should always treat each other with consideration and respect". If you don't see that rolling eyes is disrespectful, I feel sorry for you and those in your life. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you actually read the diff you provided you will see that it was not I who was rolling his eyes. Have you not noticed that it was I who found the rolling of eyes disrespectful? If not, why not. You are the one who showed the diff. You should not come here to comment when you don't even bother to read your own diff. And please, lay off the crap with the "I feel sorry for you and those in your life". Take care of your own life and those in your life before commenting on a person you don't know, have never met, and are very unlikely to at any time in the future. I won't bother commenting here again as it has become rather silly, not to mention a bit childish considering the above comment made by Born2cycle. Cheers! Carson101 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "And this is why uncivil behavior like this is so rampant on Wikipedia talk pages". Really? Carson101's comment was far less uncivil than the initial comment by Pfainuk here, surely made to irritate anyone opposed to his/her view. Imagine an editor commented that all their friends privately thought all cyclists were a menace to proper road users, should not be allowed to ride two or more abreast and should have their bikes confiscated and crushed should they be caught riding on the pavement, through a red light or without a bell on their handlebars. You would probably consider that the editor had made it up, was talking out of a hole that wasn't his/her mouth, and had probably said it just to be obnoxious. And you would be right. Carson101 had every right to express his dissatisfaction with Pfainuk's initial post, which should have been the one criticised by Born2cycle, per WP:BOOMARANG, had he/she bothered to do any research before passing comment. Daicaregos (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that Carson's comment was civil, you really need to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL again. Accusing people of lying is the very opposite of assuming good faith.
    I would note that my comment was about the discussion at hand, not a personal comment about Carson. I would note that for all his objecting about my point being based on personal experience, that point was only made in response to a comment where he talked about his personal experience, and that neither I nor anyone else felt it acceptable to go to Carson's talk page and accuse him of lying. I would note that Carson took the words "I feel sorry for you and those in your life" above very badly, and it seems distinctly inconsistent to claim that it was civil and appropriate of him to leave essentially exactly the same sentiment to me on my talk page (except without the conditional "if..." bit).
    Carson's point was that the fact that people don't argue with him when he says his country is Scotland means they agree both that Scotland is a "country", but also equivalent in status to the United States, France and Brazil. I do not think it was uncivil to point out that the inference is not necessarily clear. I do not think it uncivil to point out that many of these people may well disagree with him but not feel that it's not worth the effort to argue over, or just not care at all. The reference to eye-rolling is not made up, as Carson claims, but reflects my personal experience. He's welcome to accept that his experience is different from mine, and it is reasonable to expect that the closing admin will give each of our personal experiences the weight that they warrant in the close (which is probably not much). But what is not reasonable is his decision to come to my talk page and accuse me of lying. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool it, various editors were making assertions about what people did to did not say in the US and/or the UK and a lot of that was offensive even if it did not technically break AGF rules. Carson responded in kind to your original post. It happens on Wikipedia and running here over such a minor issue is a waste of everyone's time. --Snowded TALK 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one who decided to go around insulting people and accusing them of lying. I also object to your accusation of "running here". I remind you, I only posted here because Carson asked me to take it further. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me but this is pretty patently uncivil and is a direct accusation of editing in bad faith. Which is not allowed. I would also question the civility of some of your comments, Snowded, and note that Dai appears to have been inappropriately canvassed here. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, in answer to your post (17:42, 22 July 2011): If you are going to comment on my posts, please have the decency to read them first. I didn't say I thought Carson's comment was civil - twisting my words to imply that I did, is certainly not. I said “Carson101's comment was far less uncivil than the initial comment by Pfainuk here”. Actually, I also find your story hard to believe, as it is not my experience either. People who have taken enough interest to ask which country I'm from are highly unlikely to be so rude when they are provided with the answer. In fact, I have never heard anyone respond 'I'm from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to that question. As it happens you are the one who decided to go around insulting people. Relating a story about how rude your acquaintances are was completely unnecessary and insulting. And your ridiculous accusation of canvassing is at the wrong notice board. Daicaregos (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out where I have accused another editor of lying about their personal experiences, or told them that they were "[q]uite sad really". There's nothing in that diff that comes even close to that level of incivility. Indeed, I don't see anything uncivil or insulting in it at all: by this standard it would appear that it is impossible to make the point that there is a difference between agreeing with someone and not actually starting an argument about the thing you don't entirely agree with them about without being accused of incivility. The idea that it is more uncivil than actually going to someone's talk page, accusing them of lying and making personal attacks against them is patently absurd.
    The point about canvassing helps inform the board about what is going on here. You appear only to be here because Carson raised the matter on your talk page. You, Snowded and GoodDay are all involved parties. I see little benefit in taking it much further at this time, beyond pointing out that this canvassing appears to have occurred, allowing outside parties to make up their own minds on the subject.
    The reason why you've never heard people respond with "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is probably because no-one talks like that in day-to-day speech. In the say way, you won't very often hear German people saying that they come from "the Federal Republic of Germany" or Mexicans saying that they come from the "United Mexican States". For my part, I have heard people respond to that kind of question with "the UK", "Great Britain" or "Britain". And when asked their nationality, with "British". Doubtless, on current form, you will tell me that saying that is insulting as well, and that I deserve to be personally attacked and accused of bad faith for that as well.
    I don't believe I have ever said you have to like my personal experiences, or that you have to share them. This does not mean that they are not my personal experiences and does not give you or Carson the right to accuse me of lying. At this time, unless an outside editor comes back and asks me to discuss further, I see very little benefit in continuing to discuss this further with involved editors, such as you, Snowded, GoodDay and Carson. As such, this will be my last post in this discussion. Pfainuk talk 13:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR. Daicaregos (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From past personal expierence, trust me, you're wasting your time with this. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend closure. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Espmiideluxe

    After vandalizing the Cold Steel article twice:[23] and [24] this user User:Espmiideluxe, decides to resort to personal attacks on my talk page:[25]. Funny thing is the company in question threatened legal action against myself and Wikipedia [26] I'm not a "fan" of this company, but you can't put libelous information in an article. Just starting the claim, because I have a feeling he's going to get nutty.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad language is not polite. I think user should be banned for personal attacks (although i dont have power to do that).--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know about banning the guy, just don't feel like getting into an online "rock fight" with anyone on here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things. One, thou shalt not use the word libel on Wikipedia unless you're editing libel. Two, I don't see how the edits to the article are anything more than ordinary POV pushing. In the future, consider using a more specific template like {{uw-npov2}} for edits like this since vandalism isn't very apt; it's perfectly possible that Espmiideluxe is acting in good faith, albeit with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Using a "last change" warning template is almost certainly inappropriate with edits of this kind.
    I've placed a warning on Espmiideluxe's talk page. --Danger (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, even when he calls the owner of the company a "mall ninja"? That's ordinary POV pushing? Seemed to go beyond the typical "their product suck" POV drivel I normally see. So someone could go to the Oprah Winfrey article, call her a wookie and its not vandalism?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the difference is that, if "mall ninja" means what I think it means, the former could be construed as an criticism one might reasonably find in a reliable source, albeit in different language and "wookie" is not meaningful criticism at all, unless it has some other flavor I'm not aware of. I don't know, the distinction is pretty much academic, because the end result of persistent reinsertion is a block either way. At any rate, the other party has not responded and there's much to be done unless xe edits again. --Danger (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in my world, "Mall Ninja" is a slang, but unflattering term. Basically it implies that the person is non-tactical, overweight, and a wannabe...think of a Mall Security Guard pretending to be a Navy SEAL or LAPD SWAT Office and kitting out like he's going to raid an Al Queda safe house in Fallujah with flashbang grenades and an M4 Carbine while wearing body armor and a gas mask, when he's really just protecting the food court. A wookie is a big hairy ape-like creature from the Star Wars franchise; i used it because i didn't want to get too offensive in comparisons. Like, I said, it looked like a personal attack on the owner of the company to me. I tried to select a warning to reflect more of a BLP type violation. Thanks all the same, I guess I'm less tolerant of trolls than some.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bus stop

    I think it is apparent to many regulars that Bus stop and myself have had many heated debates. While I'd readily admit to not being as civil as I should, I do at least attempt to conform with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Bus stop, on the other hand, has a habit of making repeated edits to his talk page posts. While most of these are prior to any response, and thus probably not a breach of guidelines (though a darned nuisance, as they cause edit conflicts when attempting to reply), on occasion he breaches the guidelines by editing his comments after they have been responded to. Rather than get into another argument with him over this (the last one ended in us both being blocked for edit-warring), can I ask an uninvolved person to point out to him that edits such as this [27] are contrary to the guidelines - the datestamps clearly give a false impression that I was responding to his post at 02:28, not his revised version at 02:42. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is inappropriate to substantively edit your talk page comments, especially after a response has already been made. Fixing typos, grammar and the like is fine. In this case the clarification would have been much more helpful to everyone involved had it been made in a later comment. Bus stop, please do not do that any more.

    That said, structuring a comment in the form "If you don't understand ... , you aren't qualified ..." is certainly uncivil, and arguably a personal attack. AndyTheGrump, please do not do that any more.

    Further, I suggest this: imagine the other is a hot looking member of the sex to which you are attracted, and you're trying to get a date. Now deal with them accordingly. Now consider how you each have been behaving. Do you think that would get you the date? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Born2cycle—I had no idea that AndyTheGrump made an intervening edit. I was absorbed in getting the link that I presented, and the link to the AndyTheGrump quote is not substantive. Not only did only 129 seconds elapse between AndyTheGrump's post and my subsequent post (I have a clock attached to heaven), but all that my addition did was clarify what in AndyTheGrump's post I was responding to. There was no harm done. This could be referred to as a technicality. Don't remind me of hot looking members of the opposite sex as I'm trying to banish such thoughts from my mind. I feel that it detracts from my constructive single-mindedness. Bus stop (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus Stop, you made your original edit at 2:28. Andy replied at 2:40, and then you made your addition at 2:42. 14 minutes is a pretty long time to wait to update a comment. And I got the impression that the issue wasn't necessarily this particular comment update, or that you knew Andy made an intervening edit, but the practice of doing this pretty often in general for which this is just a recent example. In this case what you added seems redundant anyway. I wouldn't worry about it, except to know that you've been asked to no longer make comment updates like this any more. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle—the key phrase in your above post is "update". I know fully well that it could be very unfair to alter one's post in a way that changes what it is that you are saying. But providing a link only provides clarification. Others are following the discussion. Intervening posts by others can make the logic of responses, and the framework of original posts, unclear to later visitors to the dialogue. Assuming good faith matters a lot here. I had zero awareness of Andy's intervening post. It occurred 2 minutes before my alteration of my post. Those two minutes were no doubt occupied by my hunting down the link, inserting it, previewing, finally "sending". But most importantly the meaning of my post was not changed by providing a link to the post of Andy's that I was responding to.
    Isn't this page about so-called etiquette? Do I bother reporting Andy here when he posts this? I haven't. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it normal to post personal attacks in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Warden? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further consideration... unless you have evidence of Bus stop regularly making edits to his talk page comments that are not just clarifications that don't change the meaning, then I don't understand what you're complaining about, and I have to agree with Warden that this seems vexatious. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If something needs 'clarifying' then it must have been unclear before it was edited - If I misunderstood what Bus stop meant, and replied accordingly, the 'clarification' is misleading. Either the edit changed the meaning, in which case it was against guidelines, or it didn't, in which case it was unnecessary. And yes, I could provide further evidence of Bus stop editing posts after they had been replied to, but I'm not asking for action to be taken against him for this - I'm asking that he be told to work within the guidelines from now on. If this was an isolated case, it would probably be 'vexatious' to raise it here, but I have had discussions with him before on the issue, and he seems unwilling to acknowledge that he shouldn't do it. Can anyone suggest an alternative to raising this here when he has refused to take note of my request to follow appropriate standards? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, it's annoying to make a point that was already addressed without even acknowledging it. The point -- "Either the edit changed the meaning, in which case it was against guidelines, or it didn't, in which case it was unnecessary" -- was address by Bus stop above when he wrote, "But providing a link only provides clarification. Others are following the discussion. Intervening posts by others can make the logic of responses, and the framework of original posts, unclear to later visitors to the dialogue." In other words, he was clarifying not for you, but for others who might be following the thread. The point is it doesn't change the meaning for someone who understood it from the original version, but it might for someone who did not. Now, you might disagree with this, or not buy it, but at least address it by explaining your disagreement; don't just ignore it and make your point as if the point was never made.

    You have not provided any evidence that Bus stop does not understand he should not update comments on talk pages in a way that changes the meaning to someone who understood it in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see what Bus stop now claims regarding his motivations for making the change were has to do with it. He did it, against guidelines. And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that I "understood it in the first place"? As I noted in my edit after Bus stop's 'clarification', my original response was to his original posting. Had he edited it before I replied (or even better, written more clearly in the first place), I might very well have responded differently. Neither you nor he are in any position to suggest otherwise. I will be better if we stick to the facts of the situation, rather than engaging in speculation. Do you agree that editing posts after they have been replied to is against the guidelines, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unable to reconcile your words with what has transpired as I understand it. The edit in question simply quoted the words to which it was obviously replying, as a link to the diff of that same comment. I don't see how such an clarifying-redundant edit is against the guidelines, or how it could affect your reply to it. Was it not obvious to you that he was referring to the statement you had just made?

    I mean, you wrote: "There is no question that DSK considers himself ethnically Jewish.", to which he responded, "I find no occurrences of the term 'ethnically' in the Forward article". To that he later added that he's responding to you saying, ""There is no question that DSK considers himself ethnically Jewish.". Again, wasn't that already obvious? What did you think he was referring to if not that? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see little point in continuing this further. Bus stop is presumably now well aware that editing comments after others have replied is against policy - and my object of raising this here was to ensure that he understood it, and accepted that I wasn't the only person who considered it wrong. Unless he wishes to suggest that he is somehow exempt from accepted standards in regard to talk pages, I have nothing further to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is simply not true that "editing comments after others have replied is against policy", so hopefully Bus stop is not aware of that, but if he (or anyone else) is, he's mistaken, and we need to correct that.

    First, WP:TALK is a behavior guideline, not policy. Second, though it recommends against doing so, it doesn't say one's own comments absolutely should not be edited after others have replied. It certainly doesn't say or even come close to implying that editing one's owns comments even after someone replied is such a transgression that it needs be reported and dealt with. There is nothing wrong with adding clarification that is not a substantive change - doesn't change the meaning or substance of what is said in that comment - and it's wrong and disruptive to tell someone otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As it clearly states at the top of this page "the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors". I wasn't asking for this to be 'dealt with' in any way other than by requesting that an uninvolved person to point out to him that there were guidelines about "generally accepted standard[s] that editors should attempt to follow" regarding talk page etiquette. I had discussed this with him previously, but he didn't seem to get the message. Can you give any reason as to why I shouldn't have raised the matter here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can give reason to why you shouldn't have raised "the matter" here. Based on what you've shown us, there was no "matter" to raise, not here, not anywhere. Now, if he's made actual substantive edits to his comments, especially after others have responded, that would be a matter worth raising. But you have not done that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion of whether the edit was 'substantive' is just that - an opinion. Unless you have something substantive of your own to add, I'm done here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an opinion shared by everyone else who has looked at it too. And you have not explained why in your opinion it is a substantive change. Does the clarifying sentence that ends this comment change the substance of this comments? How so? It's essentially all that Bus stop added in the edit that you claim made a substantive difference to his comment. This is in response to your asserting that "Your opinion of whether the edit was 'substantive' is just that - an opinion." --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's an opinion shared by everyone else who has looked at it too". Really? So you're claiming telepathic powers now? Or do you mean "everyone else who has replied here"? That's you, me, Bus stop, and Warden, who only briefly popped in to make off-topic assertions, apparently. It seems to me that you are over-keen on debating an issue that most others would assume was settled by now. Are you doing this for a particular reason, or is it normal for you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I meant "everyone else who has replied here". My apologies.

    I'm genuinely curious why you thought it was substantive, and I like to get to a point of agreement in discussions, or at least understanding.

    Did you not read it, or misread it, and assumed it was substantive even though now you realize it wasn't? Or do you still think it's substantive now?

    And you didn't answer my question about whether you thought the last sentence in my previous comment made a substantive difference to that comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you trying to drag out this endless debate for a particular reason, or is it normal for you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to drag out, or debate, anything. You're the one dragging this out, by not answering very simple questions.

    As I said above, I like to get to a point of agreement in discussions, or at least understanding, and I'm genuinely curious why you thought, and still think, that edit was a substantive change, or whether you made a mistake. That's why I asked the questions I asked. Why are you evading rather than answering them? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that Bus stop's edit being debated here was all that substantive, but I think that it would be wise for Bus stop to take this discussion under advisement, and limit changes to comments to those that correct typos, grammar and the like. I also think that it would be wise for AndyTheGrump to stop describing other editor's work as "trolling". It may well be better for all concerned if Andy would stop portraying himself as "grumpy" and instead strive to work collaboratively with all editors working in good faith, remembering that civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I am not trying to rub you the wrong way, Andy, because I think you bring a useful perspective to our debates, even when I disagree. Less grumpiness would be appreciated though. Now, can we get back to work on improving the encyclopedia? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Um... Andy was given a final warning by TWO admins not even one week ago for such language of calling people names and insulting users... why is he not blocked? Can an admin please look into that? What is the purpose of final warnings if then Andy does it again and all is done is some people in a Wikiquette thread tell him "dont do it again, not smart", when he's already got FINAL WARNING on his talk page a week ago?Camelbinky (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at this, but as the top of this page clearly indicates, if you or anyone else wants/expects a block to be imposed, then you're posting at the wrong venue. Admin noticeboards exist for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - Camelbinky has been forum-shopping for some time over this, as well as engaging in (rather off-the-wall) personal attacks on me [28]. I'd suggest that this be ignored, unless Camelbinky wants to have a debate over snide insinuations of antisemitism, bizarre suggestions that I'm a "conservative" lacking "deference to those who've been here longer" (!), and that I am trying to make things "fair" for whites - the last of which I cannot make head nor tail of, and which it might be interesting to see how Camelbinky arrived at, if only as a study in wierdness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps before stating that I'm forum-shopping you should read Jimbo's latest personal comment on the latest thread. Going to him was not forum shopping and is not considered so. Yes perhaps if you had edited longer than your short amount of time around here you would have seen the multiple other times he clarified that. But instead you seem to have jumped right into "declaring" your interpretation of policy as fact and bullying others with incivility, refusal to compromise or actually discuss anything of substance, and continue to insult others with swearing which you have been repeatedly warned about and given a FINAL warning regarding. And yes you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles.Camelbinky (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Following Camelbinky's last remarks, I posted a complaint here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attack by User:Camelbinky. Camelbinky has so far refused to come up with any evidence (diffs etc) to back up the personal attack contained in the final sentence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    SchmuckyTheCat

    In an ongoing move request, the editor named above seems to be repeatedly removing an IP's comments (203.198.26.78) that disagree with his sentiment, on the premise that it's a sockpuppet:

    The IP has recovered his comment each time. I reverted the last of these, stating "if the IP is not a confirmed sock then it's not up to you to decide that it is". After this, he's now striking the comments instead.

    As far as I'm aware, it's normally the responsibility of the closing administrator on how to address IP contributions...? And it's normally the responsibility of SPI to determine which accounts are being used for sockpuppetry? Not the responsibility of an involved editor?

    These actions seem to be selective, since when it comes to IP's that seemingly agree with his position, he's reverted similar actions by other editors and let other IP's go. It also seems that this is not the first time (I haven't gone back any further). Nightw 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm removing the edits of a sock IP of a well known and long time puppeteer. You can't have a conversation on Chinese issues without them showing up and they are extremely disruptive. They become 100XX more disruptive if he is allowed to talk - that is why he is banned. Any user can remove the banned users comments or edits. I striked, instead of removed, after someone else responded so as not to disrupt the innocent commenter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    The other diffs in the last paragraph are self-explanatory. An IP made a comment that wasn't non-sense. That talk page material should stay and either be discussed or archived. The other edit is a racial slur. That talk page material should be removed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    You're continuing to do this. Striking and removing. This is an administrator's responsibility if it's a confirmed sock (which it isn't). Not the responsibility of an involved user. Another editor appears guilty of this as well, Xiaoyu of Yuxi but his aren't restricted to IP's: here, here and here. I've moved this to ANI. Nightw 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Aisgrigg

    Crude edit after the information on the topic mentioned before the link that has been inserted between <ref>/</ref> had several times been changed to and fro. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified Aisgrigg. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your trigger finger is too itchy. Aisgrig only has one edit - there really is no point bringing people to this board based on one edit. A polite warning on their user page and an attempt to discuss the problem should be your first step.

    Misleading piece of article

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Spla83 (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Nothing 2. None 3. I hope to correct the writer of the south sudan article to source some of his/her statements. The entire South Sudanese need to understand that being in democracy means "The authority" should not impose agenda to the "people" without the consent of the "people". Therefore, entire South Sudanes need to know our capital city is not Juba,which is like Wau and Malakal. According to the CPA, the capital is at the centre of the three old states; (Equatoria, Bhar Ghazal and Upper Nile). There are a lot of benefits of having the capital in neutral place. First we shall have a very modern town planning of what a capital city should look like. We need our capital to be in the standard of Dubai, New York and Tokoy to mention a few.Second, every citizen in each state shall focus first in developing their own towns or villages to a better healthier towns. We can reduce the mudding of other states by use forestry techniques that shall make our cities and towns enivronmentally sound.

    Spla83. Although you have not filled in the template showing us which article and which editor you are complaining about, I understand from your post above that it is the South Sudan article. On looking at the history, there are two edits by you in which you added the word "temporary" in front of "Juba" which is described as the capital city. On the first occasion another editor reverted you. On the second you were reverted by a bot.

    • this is a content dispute. It needs to be discussed on the talkpage. The general rule is WP:BRD. What that means is - and editor (like you) makes an edit. Then another editor reverts it. Clearly the two aeditors are not in agreement. The next step is to discuss it on the talk page. If instead the two editors (or more) carry on reverting each other this can develop into an edit war which can result in sanctions. Three reverts by any editor in 24 hours is an automatic 24 hour ban except in a few specific circumstances.
    • This page is for concerns about editor behaviour. There are no such concerns as yet. You need to discuss this issue on the talkpage - but bear in mind that information in the encyclopedia requires notable, reliable and verifiable sources. It is best to cite these when you raise the issue on the talkpage.
    • I will post some links to our policies and guidelines on your talkpage for you. Fainites barleyscribs 10:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=441148946"