Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 144: Line 144:


::::Isn't there some general project or manual of style about TV series like this and what should go in? I didn't see one at the side of [[WP:TRIVIA]] which would be the overall guide but I saw a few similar areas. I'd have thought the main criterion would be [[WP:Verifiability]], has the trivia been mentioned in a secondary source as something interesting? Ask people for citations and that should get rid of most of the trivia I'd have thought. Deleting trivia wholescale if there might be something reasonable in it seems to be discouraged by [[WP:TRIVIA]] though. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Isn't there some general project or manual of style about TV series like this and what should go in? I didn't see one at the side of [[WP:TRIVIA]] which would be the overall guide but I saw a few similar areas. I'd have thought the main criterion would be [[WP:Verifiability]], has the trivia been mentioned in a secondary source as something interesting? Ask people for citations and that should get rid of most of the trivia I'd have thought. Deleting trivia wholescale if there might be something reasonable in it seems to be discouraged by [[WP:TRIVIA]] though. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Mainly.generic's accusations of "harboring a grudge" (a false accusation in my case, and a presumptuous assumption in all cases) in no way mitigates or justifies Metro's attempts to intimidate editors who disagree with him and Metro's own false accusations of personal attacks and sockpuppetry. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Slinging mud on this page does nothing to resolve the problems. [[Special:Contributions/65.41.234.70|65.41.234.70]] ([[User talk:65.41.234.70|talk]]) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


== Continuous Personal Attacks by [[User:BilCat]] ==
== Continuous Personal Attacks by [[User:BilCat]] ==

Revision as of 18:02, 15 December 2009

    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

    User:Coffee

    Resolved
     – User has agreed to make an effort at being "less of an ass" in the future. No need to continue this. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

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

    This discussion is what has prompted me to start this. User:Coffee's conduct is rude and inconsiderate. In fact, he has even said that he intends on continuing this sort of behavior in the future.[1] This kind of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and needs to be resolved... The Thing Merry Christmas 14:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Personally I can't see were Coffee has broken WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA anywhere within that discussion. Its possible that his general attitude might have been wanting, however I can't see that he has been rude. Please provide specific quotes/diffs, as I seem to have missed your point.
    However, I can't help but notice some insulting comments made in regard to him, such as:
    "Coffee, to be honest, you're acting like a jerk"
    "You're being mean. [...] you brand yourself as an individual of great and unyielding spite."
    "Stop being a dick"
    It looks more to me like Coffee is more a "victim" than a "perpetrator" here. Admins have no more leniency within policy than any other user, but it doesn't look to me like Coffee has broken any policy here. Again, please provide some quotes/diffs of where you found Coffee to be rude.
    Kind regards, (and happy christmas to you too) SpitfireTally-ho! 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I, with all due non respect, don't respect your opinion is uncivil as far as I'm concerned. [[2]] (Something weird going on with the history, not sure why I'm getting a bunch of diffs in one edit?)Gerardw (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was copy pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ucucha. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is at least 1 more diff regarding his conduct...: "@Jusdafax Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking". Also, at Gerardw, Coffee moved the discussion to the RfA's talk page. this is what you're looking for. The Thing Merry Christmas 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, its a comment that is not particularly becoming and is unlikely to gain him much support, however, it is not uncivil by policy. There's no explicit breach of civility from Coffee here. Also, please don't just go through his contribs looking for incriminating material, everyone makes mistakes, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Coffee: the diff provided, whilst not uncivil by policy, isn't polite nor constructive. I suggest, respectfully, that you refrain from similar comments in future, its easy enough to get the same point across without causing upset. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What purpose does I, with all due non respect serve other than to belittle another editor? See direct rudeness. I don't understand what is meant by uncivil by policy ... it's a judgment call, achieved by consensus like everything else. Gerardw (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pull your head out of your ass" and "I, with all due non-respect, don't respect your opinion" are not civil statements. Coffee was pissed and allowed his emotions to enter into the discussion. He does this often and he won't see the need to apologize for it in this instance either. He also has enough of a following here that nothing can be done about it, and incivility is a tough thing to gain consensus on to begin with. However, this isn't the most awful thing in the world. There are many editors who skirt the bounds of civility and probably violate it regularly, subjective a judgment as it is. I'd suggest growing some semblance of a thick skin if you plan on surviving here. Dismiss pettiness as just that. The best reaction is none at all. Nothing is more defeating than an unrequited provocation. Equazcion (talk) 20:29, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    For the record, I have never interacted with Coffee before, so am not part of his "following", to be honest i see very little evidence of a following at the discussion linked by Thing. I agree that Coffee's behaviour is not good, particularly of an admin, however, it appears to be within the bounds of policy, yes, he can and should think about improving upon his attitude if he wishes to retain a sense of community trust in him. However, that said, some, not all, but some, of the people who have interacted with Coffee should seriously think about removing the planks from their own eye's before worrying about the splinter in their brothers (see quoted comments above). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Coffee is what he is, just another know-it-all kid who should never have been made an administrator; but he was, and now we have to live with the consequences of the "admin for life" culture that is destroying wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This just proves the point of my comment above; referring to another user as a "know-it-all kid" in a disparaging way is not polite. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look. I have had no experiance with Coffee whatsoever. (other than the fact that we both reqularly participate in the RFA's) But calling him a know-it-all kid is rude and ageist. Im tired of people thinking that minors on wikipedia are bad. The simple answer is if minor were to stop helping with the project alltogether. Then theis site would fall into disrepair. While his actions may not have been a good example of WP:CIVIL you cant blame them on his age. Lots of amazing editors (like User:Juliancolton) are minors and are a great benefit to the project as a whole.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with Spitfire. I do not like to see one of our Admins publicly belittled, or held up to ridicule, or to be demeaned in any way. Calling Coffee, another know-it-all kid, mean, a jerk, a dick, a prick, etc., by numerous editors was not showing an Admin. due respect. Nor am I calling on him to resign. I certainly do not want this to turn into a lynch mob. Yet I do have concern about some of Coffee's remarks i.e.

    • I, with all due non respect, don't respect your opinion. --Coffee
    • I wasn't being sarcastic Ed. Ret.Prof is not someone who's opinion I take into consideration, and I know several people who agree.--Coffee
    • I don't know where some of you get off on the "civility" crap, but saying what my opinions are is not uncivil. Please stop trying to protect Ret.Prof's feelings and move on. --Coffee
    • Talking does not require the tools. Go run along and try to "recall" someone else now. --Coffee
    • News flash, I plan on continuing to be blunt, I don't "represent the site", and guess what: I'm not going to resign anytime soon. --Coffee
    • Don't lie, you personally hope that tomorrow I will block someone and then get blocked by someone else. Hate to break it to you, but my commentary doesn't affect my administrative decisions. --Coffee
    • TTTSNB, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, so the more people who comment on my words, makes no difference to me. . . --Coffee
    • You are conducting yourself in a dishonourable manner. By your actions you brand yourself as an individual of great and unyielding spite. Crafty (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) You hit the nail on the head. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh jeez way to blow it out of proportions. I've said much worse, and probably will again in the future. Stop making this sound so profound. I expect to be able to use my tools just as easily tommorrow as I did today. --Coffee

    Now I am not saying comments like "Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking" are uncivil. Nor has Coffee hurt my feelings. Quite frankly in the real world I have been called worse, by better people. But when Admins behave like this it does hurt Wikipedia. This project depends on volunteers and donations. If Admins and Crats adopt the Coffee standard, we will have a problem. Coffee you know you can do a better job as an admin . . . One that we can all respect and admire - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your comment entirely, and I also call on Coffee to attempt to improve, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I wasn't really attempting to call for his to resignation. It was more of pointily drawing attention to the bad connection of admin and his comments. The "stop being a dick" quote, which was mine, was meant in the spirit of WP:SPADE, not to be incivil. Coffee, please reread your comments before posting them. There is absolutely no need to cut other editors down the way you have been doing. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SPADE is an essay, however, I'll qoute from it anyway: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks.", kind wishes SpitfireTally-ho! 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Bahh, essays >.< (signing out for the evening)[reply]
    • Let's cut to the chase. Coffee summed it up perfectly when he said "I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, so the more people who comment on my words, makes no difference to me". He believes that his winning of the RfA popularity contest (who cares when) gives him carte blanche to act like a prick. Just the way it is with administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not let this get out of hand. There are a lot of good admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Giles from Buffy summed it up perfect with (and I'm paraphrasing here) "When I want your opinion, Malleus Fatuorum, I'll... I'll never want your opinion." That was an incredible stupid and generalising statement. Yes, let's get rid of all of our admins. Bye bye, Coffee, Xeno, J.delanoy, Beeblebrox and all the others. By the consensus of Malleus Fatuorum, you've all been desysopped. There, Malleus Fatuorum. Now we can see how long it is before Wikipedia collapses in on itself. I'm guessing two weeks. For a start, read what you typed:
    • Coffee: "I'm not trying to win a popularity contest..."
    • You: "He believes that his winning of the RfA popularity contest..."
    Yeah, that makes sense. I know I'm being snarky and bitey, but that was a moronic post you made. I don't know who Coffee is and I haven't caught anything but the highlights here. I don't know if he's being a dick or not, but that statement practically confirmed you as one. Now, can we please get back to the editor at hand? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not being "snarky and bitey", you're being an idiot. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Well backed up. Would read again. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In response to your long comment earlier, Ret.Prof, where you say "I do not like to see one of our Admins publicly belittled, or held up to ridicule, or to be demeaned in any way." -- Admins aren't entitled to any less public scrutiny than other editors; I'd say the opposite, actually. Anyone, admins included, have to earn our "due respect"; they're not inherently entitled to it, at least not any more than anyone else. Pointing out the respect that the implied "office" of Administrator is due, as an opposition to arguments brought against one, is a non-starter. If you want to say people in this discussion are using terms that no one should be using on Wikipedia to refer to any other editor, that might instead have a chance of being a valid point. Equazcion (talk) 22:37, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    Of course you are right. I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am a very blunt person, I haven't and don't plan on changing that. There's no need to beat around the bush, of what I think. Sadly people are hating something they should like, being honest. Ret.Prof is someone (as I've stated before) who's opinions I don't respect. I don't think it's uncivil to state that, it's more of plain honesty. Just like I have no problem saying that I have no respect for TTTSNB or Malleus. TTTSNB was immature enough to get the boot from freenode, he was k-lined there. Malleus, well lets just say a lot of people don't respect his opinion, for many reasons; and for anyone to be talking about "civility", he is the last person anyone would listen to about that, considering his history. Could have I acted better? Yes. But I see no reason to apologize for stating my honest opinions. In my opinion, I didn't breach the lines of civility in this discussion, and haven't breached those lines yet. If I ever do, I would of course apologize. But using profanity (as I did with Jusdafax), or simple honesty (as I did with Ret.Prof), is not being uncivil. Respectfully, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between being blunt and being a prick. I personally hold an opinion of you that, in honesty, goes about six miles past the lines of WP:NPA, but I don't say that because simply thinking something ("being honest") and typing it out loud in a blunt manner for all to see are two completely separate things. Try to at least pretend to possess some self-restraint and maturity. Tan | 39 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well at least I can say that everyone who has posted here "rebuking" me, I don't hold in very high regards. (With exception of maybe Ed) I like the fact that Tan, while trying to tell me to be civil here, basically called me a prick. I think that my actions here have been much more mature and civil than anyone attempting to rebuke me for them. Regards, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be your way of communicating, so I thought I'd try it. Your actions have been far, far from "mature and civil", in fact, they've been completely immature and totally incivil. Tan | 39 22:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Pull your head out of your ass, Coffee. Equazcion (talk) 22:57, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    • It's likely futile at this point to ask that we all tone it down a notch. I've seen folks get blocked for less, and I've seen others speak more rudely without raising any eyebrows. Some folks tend to get overly sensitive about some things, and some folks can be known to speak rather bluntly. Is it fair? Nope. But life isn't always fair either. I don't see any blocks coming at this point, and hopefully there won't be any need for them here. If a couple folks don't get along - then perhaps just avoiding each other would avoid any further escalation here. "Honesty" and "Nice" don't always go hand-in-hand, but let's all try our best to at least be respectful, it's the only way this project is going to work properly.

    — Ched :  ?  22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Equazcion - you may want to think that last remark)[reply]

      • Oh I'm sorry, Ched. Was that last remark offensive? Should I not have made it? If others agree I'll apologize for it. Equazcion (talk) 23:01, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps it was a mistake that Arbcom resysopped Coffee without an RFA, after he shared his admin password with a non-admin? I have been on good terms with him, but I have noticed his incivility has been creeping up and up over the past few weeks. I say this as somebody who considers him a "wiki friend". He needs to tone it down. Majorly talk 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict)Hopefully my last comment - Ok I'll admit my actions have not been the best, they haven't been thought out enough. Have they been honest? Yes. Have they been the kindest they could be? No. I'll take note to not be such an ass. But I must mention that when so many people jump on me at once, I tend to only get more defensive. If anyone would be so kind, it would be nice next time if someone saw one of my actions as rebukable, that they sent me a kind email. If you would take that into note, I'd probably respond a lot better. Now I'm going to go back to editing. Cheers, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on guys! Coffee said, "I'll take note to not be such an ass." What more can we ask. He does have a lot of good points too - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I think you just earned back like 200% of your respect. You are the only person who should have been offended by my comments, yet you have been amazingly civil, and understanding. I applaud you Ret.Prof, even if I don't agree with everything you say. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus Fatuorum, your comment saying Because you're a hormonal teenager? is way out of line. That deserves a warning in of itself. Dont try to point out the splinter in another editor's eye when you yourself have a log in yours.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:31, 10 December 2009 (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.

    User:65.41.234.238 and Saturday Night Live

    User:Mainly.generic started a discussion about this situation, and I once again explained why I deleted the notes, no matter how interesting they might have been. At first I was in a slight disagreement with User: 71.77.17.46 about the matter but after s/he backed off, User talk:65.41.234.238 came out of nowhere and started arguing to the point that I now can’t tell if s/he is against removing the notes or against me personally. Mainly.generic then came up with a very good proposal about how we can possibly improve the articles, and after I commented on it, 65.41.234.238 completely and unnecessarily picked it apart, and as I said before, it seems like s/he is doing so because it has something to do with me; it doesn’t even seem to be about the articles anymore. [3]

    To say that 65.41.234.238’s behavior is incivil would be an understatement. Maybe some users think I’m reading too much into this, but I don’t. Thoughts? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added a note on 65.41.234.238’s talk page about this discussion, informing involved parties should be done when starting an alert here.
    Anybody is allowed to come along and discuss changes on the talk page and previous consensus can be changed. In fact changing an article is often a good way of bringing in more people to discuss a change. Looking at the history I believe 65.41.234.238 has acted civilly and I would question why you have to talk about another editor as having a tantrum when they disagree with you. There was some lack of assume good faith by 65.41.234.238 in the bit about wanting a separate article for each episode but I think you had contributed to a lack of respect and trust by then. I think it would be better to concentrate on the subject and as far as possible and try avoiding commenting on other editors. Dmcq (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COMP did notify the anon, you were looking at their "user page" Dmcq, not their talk page. I have tagged User:65.41.234.238 for deletion. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how I got there? that was very stupid of me, thanks, added a strikeout above, sorry. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed a reference in another editor's text in case anyone else falls over this. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me the personalization started here [[4]] with COMPFUNK2/American Metrosexual's comment. Gerardw (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting on the subject is what I've been trying to do. And Dmcq, I don't understand why you think I had a lack of trust -- I mean, I literally don't understand what you mean. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    did you even bother to read is not commenting on the subject, it's implying another another editor is lazy or something else not real positive. Gerardw (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, after seeing this comment, I got suspicious as to why the only users that seem to be challenging what I say are anonymous IPs, and after doing a whois check, I discovered that this new IP is coming from the exact same location as the original IP that disagreed with me, and the new IP just happened to start editing SNL-related articles in question after the 71 IP stopped. Is there some sockpuppetry or SPA nonsense going on? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were the same person why would it make any difference to your arguments? Have the two IPs acted in suppport of each other on a proposal or something like that? I haven't seen any evidence of improper conduct even if they were the same person. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest you take it to WP:SPI if that's your suspicion. WQA is for outstanding civility matters, of which I see very little evidence. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I have never claimed that 71.77.17.46 and 75.178.178.212 are different editors, and if American Metrosexual disagrees with that he should show us the diffs in which I claimed to be two different editors. My IP changes sometimes beyond my control. I fully acknowledge that I have used two IPs because I had no choice. What I do not acknowledge is some personal issue with American Metrosexual; he seems to not want anyone to challenge his ideas and takes personal offense when they do so. 75.178.178.212 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do I have to say that's not what I'm doing? If I am taking any personal offense, like I stated before, it's because I feel I am being attacked, not my idea (there is a difference). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack, I respectfully suggest that you respond to the anon's comments on the level which they were made; within a content dispute, rather than treating them like personal attacks, which they are not. The anon probably had no intention of attacking you. kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I get a message from Metro telling me I am being discussed here. Could someone please explain why Metro is trying to intimidate everyone who disagrees with him. This doesn't make any sense. And by the way, before Metro accuses me of sockpuppetry, let me point out that I am the same user as anon 65.41.234.238. My IP address changes sometimes when I restart my modem. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's really what you think, then you missed this entire discussion. And Gerardw, did you not see that the IP said something to me first?
    I think it's time for me to take a wikibreak because it's extremely unfair for people to treat me like I'm acting in bad faith and refusing to even consider that I might be making a valid point. All I'm trying to do is help. (And why are you always against me, Spitfire?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against you on principal. I've very clearly explained to you the reason why I disagree with you, and its not because I make a point to oppose you on everything. I'm sure that you aren't acting in bad faith, however, just because your intent isn't malicious doesn't automatically make you correct. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, the linked discussion was over half a year ago, and I didn't specifically come to this discussion because you were involved, but have been active in WQA for the last couple of weeks. Furthermore, my comments on this matter were made from a neutral point of view, and I haven't been holding any past matters against you, nor will. I hope you can return the favour and not hold them against me. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where one 65.41.234.238 23:37 backed up 71.77.17.46 but it doesn't seem a point where people would bother with sockpuppeting.
    As to being personal could you point to where the IP said something to you first? I will go through the discussions thee and say where I thought they started becoming personal:
    • With 71.77.17.46 22:08, 5 December 2009 . IP says "and your argument is lame." and says why they think that. You come back "did you even bother to read WP:TRIV?" which is a very serious escalation. Later on you have things like "Sneaking it into the individual season articles is the same thing. (BTW, it appears that the only person that seems to disagree with this is you.)" with no provocation at all that I can spot. When they respond complaining "What's your point? That there is a consensus in favor of removing notes sections when two people favor it? Or that your opinion is more important than mine?" you say "Okay, I think you need to calm down" and "You seem to be having a tantrum" which very definitely turns the whoile business personal.
    • With . 65.41.234.238 23:37, 6 December 2009 . They start with "I agree with 71.77 in the respect that while I agree with Compfunk in part to clean up the notes, we shouldn't get rid of all the notes." then "Can we come to an agreement that will be agreeable on both parts? (combining our two points of view?". You respond with "My point was simple; the notes were trivia. I used the AfD link above to easily explain why they were deleted before (by an admin, remember) and then later by me, but it seems like the 71 IP doesn't get it because s/he doesn't want to get it." They respond with "Metro, 71 IP doesn't want to get it?? It's you who doesn't want to answer his question. How is listing the songs peformed by a musical guest "random", "disorganized" "trivia"? The question has been asked several times. And, by the way, you just made another personal attack". To which you respond "Oh, my God, will y'all stop?". And it rapidly degenerates from there to where you say "I never said listing musical guests was random. And by the way, information is supposed to be acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines, not yours. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL because you're getting worked up over nothing." That is about the point where I would say you have lost respect and trust of 65.41.234.238.
    Overall I think you would be much better off as I said before just trying harder to concentrate on the points about the article. And Wikipedia isn't that important. If you see yourself about to write to somebody asking them to cool down, instead delete that sentence and go and have a cup of coffee, try forcing a smile or whatever it is you do to think pretty thoughts. If they aren't outright vandals they're probably trying to do something useful. In the balance of things one negative comment costs at least three and possibly more positive ones by my reckoning, so try and find something positive to say if anything. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to come to Metrosexual's defence. All throughout this process I've tried to keep things civil, but goddamn, it's getting hard. Tensions started when Metro edited Saturday Night Live (season 35), removing the show notes. This came at odds with existing editors, as it was a complete 180 compared to existing processes. A problem inherent with all Saturday Night Live articles is a major excess of trivia (on the Saturday Night Live cast page we have had people add the 'tallest castmembers'. Why?!). Metro tried to remove this fluff (which I myself have been working hard on, but every time I remove something, ten people will be waiting in live to add it back), and people got mad at time. I believe anon was still harboring a grudge over this, and chose to get extremely picky over the whole matter.
    I doubt we'll come to a resolution anytime soon. I've proposed the creation of WikiProject Saturday Night Live, which I hope with the inclusion of an experience admin as a project member, we may finally come to some sort of an understanding.Mainly.generic (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there some general project or manual of style about TV series like this and what should go in? I didn't see one at the side of WP:TRIVIA which would be the overall guide but I saw a few similar areas. I'd have thought the main criterion would be WP:Verifiability, has the trivia been mentioned in a secondary source as something interesting? Ask people for citations and that should get rid of most of the trivia I'd have thought. Deleting trivia wholescale if there might be something reasonable in it seems to be discouraged by WP:TRIVIA though. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mainly.generic's accusations of "harboring a grudge" (a false accusation in my case, and a presumptuous assumption in all cases) in no way mitigates or justifies Metro's attempts to intimidate editors who disagree with him and Metro's own false accusations of personal attacks and sockpuppetry. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Slinging mud on this page does nothing to resolve the problems. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous Personal Attacks by User:BilCat

    Stuck
     – Initiator has a similar problem and has similar comments about admins on WP:ANI, not willing to accept answer here so best left to admins)
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    User:BilCat is continuously calling me a vandal: [5], [6], [7]

    When I asked him to stop that, he accused me of another blockable offense, again without evidence: [8]

    Please ask him to stop. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify him, he just got his /Talk semiprotected. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note I have told BilCat, and also note this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Bogus_PA_warning_from_User:MBK004. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading the supplied diffs it is apparent that User:BilCat has acted entirely appropriately and has no case to answer. If anyone is guilty of incivility it is the 91.55.204.136 with his edit summary here. - Nick Thorne talk 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So it's ok to call another editor vandal if I don't understand his actions? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll note that was in response to the previous edit summary calling his edit "vandalism" (although it was a legitimate edit). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, calling legitimate edits vandalism, as BilCat did, is uncool. As was this [[9]]. So both editors could be more polite. Gerardw (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the ANI discussion has reached the point of suggesting mutual apologies and going on from there; the proponent would like to see uninvolved agreement. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance, this is a good way to go forward. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, mutuality would suggest that BilCat responds and shows at least a glimpse of understanding. Currently, he reacts with either reverts or personal attacks to my posts and does his best to avoid a discussion with me (spreading the topic all over the place in the process). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's been shown here might be incivil by BilCat, are NOT personal attacks. So please stop mis-characterizing things. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PA lists among the things considered to be a personal attack: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. You can even be blocked for vandalism, so in my book it's worse than calling someone "idiot" or something similar. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but unexplained, unsourced and undiscussed anonymous edits are often indistinguishable from vandalism. If you don't want to be called a vandal, then don't edit like one. It is time you dropped the stick. - Nick Thorne talk 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially if you don't know jack about the article in question. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not see the irony in your aggressive postng style in a thread started by you to complain about another editor's behaviour? People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. - Nick Thorne talk 03:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the article, BilCat didn't. I've just seen the movie before fixing its article, BilCat don't know jack about it. I'm aware that IPs are treated badly here, that shouldn't stop you to acknowledge the simple fact that I wanted to improve the article and BilCat tried to stop me. (Quite sucessfully in the case of the carriers' articles, I might add. The version that BilCat's expert confirmed to be wrong is still in place.) --91.55.230.143 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, what? To recap: 1. I report an uncivility. 2. One editor disagrees, one is not aware of current WP:PA, two at least see some merit. 3. The uncivil editor never even shows up. Now you come along and tell me to drop the stick? Please explain the procedure I should've rather followed. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been fixed, BilCat has been told characterizing the edits as vandalism was uncool -- and you've been asked to drop the stick. The procedure you should follow now is to stop with the uncivil characterizations of other editors. e.g. don't know jack. and resume improving Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW: His attacks are continuing. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must admit, I have no idea about the discussed article or its edits. Just an observation: this thread is focusing on personal qualities which nobody can possibly know. We are here to build an encyclopedia, aren't we. Why don't we get back to working on that instead of talking about it. In other words, it is the article content rather than "who knows what" that should be discussed and improved, I believe. Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:

    • Break some policy (NPA and AGF seem to be the most popular).
    • Watch that you are reported somwhere in WP:Dispute resolution.
    • Ignore it.
    • Watch other editors attack the reporter.
    • Keep quiet.
    • Watch other editors rush to protect dead horses.
    • Carry on.

    In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.

    The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well 91.55, this post demonstrates excactly why you seem to be having trouble with other editors on Wikipedia. You assume a (totally unsupported) position of greater knowledge and moral superiority over other editors and then when they do not bow down to your wisdom you become aggressive. You ascribe motives to others that you cannot possibly know anything about and then deign to hand out advice that you might well take yourself. It is well and truly time for you to climb down from your high horse. - Nick Thorne talk 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is beating a dead horse now? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Let me see. I've made four posts in this thread before this one. You've made ten. What do you think? I'm done with you, I think Bill was right - I'm bailing out WP:DNFT. - Nick Thorne talk 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposer is putting similar comments about admins on the WP:ANI page so I think we can leave them to deal with any problem and close this here as being dealt with in another forum. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[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.

    Flower Travellin Problems - personal attacks, edit wars, POV

    Hi - I'm having some issues with a user - and I've been unable to deal with them in the past, so hoped someone else would lend a neutral POV to this. Their contributions seem to be sort of a mixed bag.

    (I am also trying to be retired but someone pointed this out to me):

    • Some questionable changes : [10] [11] [12]
    • Some fine changes: [13]
    • Some odd removals of references: [14] [15] [16] [17]
    • and some blatant personal attacks and removals of huge chunks of pages (that I was not the only contributor to): [18] [19]

    In summary the user seems to want to remove anything but some strange arbitraty stuff they agree with, and want to replace all sources with references to the band's official site.

    I have tried to discuss this with the user before, and was told by them not to talk to them again [20]. They refuse to participate in talk pages, and they refuse to use their account ever since they were blocked (although they are not currently blocked)[21]… The user has also (under other IPs) edit warred with others and myself [22], along with personal attacks and foul language [23]…

    I'm not sure how to approach this, didn't want to dig up everything (there were other edit wars I wasn't involved in but they're easy to find) and I really don't want to get involved anymore, but I hope someone else cares enough to get involved. I'm not sure if/when I'll check back here, so feel free to do whatever seems best. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling somebody a vandal is a personal attack and quite unacceptablke. I think though this is probably more a content dispute or may even require admin action because of the way the bands own site is being used instead of secondary sources. Perhaps best would be if you could get a WP:Third opinion or better WP:Request for comments Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Need assistance

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – edit warring, not wikiquette, referrred Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:98.197.181.195_reported_by_User:gerardw_.28Result:_.29 Gerardw (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I don't seem to be able to properly communicate the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP issues regarding User:98.197.181.195's edits to League City, Texas. Perhaps I'm wrong and would appreciate another editor's review and assessment. Thank you, Postoak (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war issue, not wikiquette, referred to AN board. Gerardw (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2009 (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.

    User:Sdsds - Assuming bad faith

    Resolved
     – Tensions have been alleviated independently

    Hi all. With no real place to turn to (I don't feel this is an issue appropriate for anything drastic like WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM), I'd appreciate it if there could be some attention from kind individuals in a discussion between User:Sdsds. The issue arose when I nominated one of his articles for deletion, posted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galaxy_Express_Corporation. The comment left there by him led me to post this request to his talk page that he tries to assume good faith in that I am simply trying to benefit the Wikipedia project as a whole. This appears to have only escalated things, now at my talk page where he chooses to call me out as a "deletionist" despite the fact that this is a very minimal portion of my work, and claiming that I am somehow harming the Wikipedia project by trying to raise Wikipedia quality. If anyone could offer advice on how to proceed or step in to ease tensions, that would be great. I'm not sure what else to do. Feel free to ask any questions if necessary. --Shirik (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack advice

    Stuck
     – Use ANI or RfC/U.

    A user has started an apparent RFC attack page on me: User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 This user has trolled, deleted my articles, aggressively reverted my edits, complained to admins, canvased other users to attack me and now seems to be planning a RFC attack. This user is compulsively attacking me without dealing with the substantive issues.

    I am looking for advice and attack intervention. The user has called me "pointless", a "waste of time", "non-productive" and "incoherent" as if he owns the article's POV. He does not want to talk directly, ignores and then escalates issues, without addressing the content or the issues raised by me and others on talk pages.

    This user has a history of abusive admin powers (which were revoked), having previously blocked harmless editors. There is a litany of editors scraped by this users past abuses. Other editors have written critical articles on this users behavior.

    I can create an long Diff list of RFC issues on this user's behavior, but that would not be appropriate at this junction. I am not completely innocent, I confess a few transgressions -- which unlike this aggressive user -- I can acknowledge and move on. I've taken a step back from our NPOV dispute for now. Doing my best to proceed with peaceful bold, revert, discuss cycles (including measurements). Any further advice will be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is related to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#The irony of "RV_STOP_EDIT_WARRING!!!" set up after ZuluPapa5 put in a comment STOP THE TAG WAR NOW, SEE TALK!!! on the article and reverted it. The article referenced on that 'attack page' was deleted practically unanimously. My feeling is there's enough warring and admins and things on that talk page without more people being involved.
    I searched for those personal attack terms on the talk page. The 'pointless', 'waste of time' and 'nonproductive' were not specific. However the 'incoherent' was personal, it occurred in Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #7. IT would be better to just say they didn't understand the proposal or be more specific about its problems rather than characterize the proposer. Have you put a message on the other editors talk page about this discussion here? Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The issues are focused in that article but cover a few others too. The ed told me to stay off his page and he would accept all warnings. Feel free to notify the ed. My talk page has not been changed. He removes anything regarding his behavior from his talk page.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like you were complaining yesterday on WP:ANI about William_M._Connolley on a related matter, so you have complained to admins too. What is that about canvassing other editors to attack you? I'll leave a note but editors ar entitled to remove practically anything from their talk pages. If they say they don't want to talk to you there you should respect tht but a dispassionate statement about a discussion on WQA should be okay. I'll go and put a message there anyway though. Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the merits of ZP5's complaint, WMC has a long history of removing talk page comments (article talk page), edit warring, and incivility. I will provide detail here if requested, though it may take a bit of time as I'm pretty busy at the moment. ATren (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he can remove his own article talk comments to show he retracts a comment but if it has been in for more than a short time he should strike them through or otherwise make it explicit as others may have read it. Are you saying he removes other people's comments? That is a more serious matter and should only be done for clearly personal attacks, see WP:RPA and of course one can remove clear vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's others' comments, and in most cases they don't contain PAs, at least not by the standard WMC has set for himself (e.g. not any worse than "incoherent", "waste of time", etc). I've seen it maybe a dozen times over the last few months. I will try to collect diffs and post them, but as I said, I am busy in real life so I may not get to it right away. ATren (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems rather ironic to begin a WA with This user has trolled..., no? User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is not an attack page - try reading it. It is a draft for an RFC, or rather the first notes towards one William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How about the business about saying the editor was 'Incoherent, as usual'? Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Hipocrite removed another personal attack by you 'Declare ZP5 a waste of time and ban him from this article'. Sorry ZP5 for resurrecting that but iut seems germane here that another editor had to clean up the text rather than WMC. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the important thing is that the talk page, which is intended for the discussion of the article content, no longer contains that attack. The identity of the person removing it doesn't color the action. I encourage all editors to do likewise when talk pages become venues for personal attacks. --TS 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole attack thing has become ridiculous. This discussion started with ZP5's claim that User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/RFC-ZP5 is a personal attack. This is obviously rubbish. Close this discussion and stop this crazy mudslinging that is spreading over wikipedia and wasting people's time. Polargeo (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was dismissed early on here. The question is about those personal attacks, can something be done about getting a more civil attitude or do you think they are an acceptable way to refer to a fellow editor? Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmcq. I know you mean well but ZP5 has been wasting a lot of people's time and stating so should not be dealt with as a personal attack any longer but an honest and constructive assessment of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would "a waste of time is wasting people's time" be appropriate, or is that also too uncivil? WMC's choice of words may be less than ideal, but quite frankly, the sentiment behind them seems pretty much on target. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If folks don't want to invest productive time here, please refrain, and discontinue the the personal attacks on this page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without providing the extensive list of diffs (please just look at user contributions ZP5) you have been going around claiming WMC has been personally attacking you on numerous occasions, usually over him expressing extremely minor and justified opinions. This really is wasting a lot of people's time here. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)It's not an attack, it's a question as to whether people think that the wording is the problem, or the characterisation of your behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, ZP5, don't you know WMC is allowed to say things which would get someone like you banned? ATren (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Inflammatory commentary does not help this situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither does pretending that a problem doesn't exist. ATren (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor does mischaracterising the issue. It is not that anyone is pretending that a problem does/doesn't exist - it is the simple fact that this WQA has outlived its usefulness and will not achieve any of the outcomes that are expected by either party. In such circumstances, the best thing to do is refer it to the more appropriate venue for presenting evidence and views on the matter - RfC/U. It would moot the primary concern expressed by the filing party also; there would be no "draft". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, please calm down.
      • The subject of this WQA is entitled to maintain a page on his userspace that drafts (or has notes) for filing an RfC/U. In fact, it is specifically encouraged that you collect evidence and draft your RfC before filing one. If WMC kept this page up for an unreasonable amount of time (as a matter of days/weeks rather than a matter of 48 hours), then it may warrant deletion (through the appropriate deletion venues), but that is not the case here as it has been barely 48-ish hours since it was created.
      • There were occasions where the subject's comments have been construed by some users as incivility that was directed personally at the filing party (ZP5) - but these seem to have been dealt with to the satisfaction of those users.
    • This is resolved - any further issues would need to go through the next step in dispute resolution, namely RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I've started collecting evidence with respect to the side thread above (removing article talk comments) so I may open another report against WMC in the next few days.
    I OBJECT - The attacks have not been resolved by the offender to my satisfaction. WMC could do better to explain himself before drafting an RFC. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Opening another thread would qualify as abusing the dispute resolution process. If comments warrant removal, use ANI or proceed to the next step in DR. As you do not agree with this being resolved, this is now closed as stuck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever about the justification of opinions they should be phrased about the content and not about the person. 'I think going down that alley wouldn't be fruitful as we've been over it before in xyz' for instance is a comment about content rather than saying a person is a waste of time. WP:Civility is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and one should 'Participate in a respectful and considerate way.' This situation most definitely does not seem resolved to me. Whay has the stuck marker been put on? I will remove it till a good reply. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you replace the stuck mark. This WQA has clearly outlived its usefulness and the outcome that the filing party is seeking is not going to be achieved at this venue - in such circumstances where a party does not believe the issues are resolved, the dispute is marked as stuck and the parties are advised as to the next step(s) in DR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ncmvocalist, please assume good faith here. A premature closure, without time for the offender to substantively respond, might be considered a form of escalation. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no offence per your original report. This is truely stuck. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to leave a moment for ZP5 or WMC to respond. Also if it is escaled I'd go to WP:ANI as RfC/U is not binding either so it can't do much more than here. If not then yes okay. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a lengthy comment on ZP5's talk page here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please stop feeding and encouraging this string of what is becoming harrassment by ZP5. The initial complaint is nonsense. He has gotten annoyed because editors are deleting his articles because they are extremely poor. This is not the place to deal with this issue. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Polargeo is wrong to close this without giving WMC time to respond and will put in my own comment at the top. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe it is wrong to close this before giving WMC time to respond. Escalating issues to arbitration when it might still be possible to solve them amicably is not reasonable dispute resolution. I would recommend WMC be blocked from climate issues for a while if there is arbitration, I would prefer an undertaking to moderate the language just deal with the issues not personalities instead. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your objection is noted, but please do not mess up the chronology of this thread. The thread is not closed as such until discussion stops or is stopped via archive tabs so there is no rush to remove the tag that exists. If there is no change after 24 hours, it is likely to be ready to close accordingly. In other words, perhaps instead of adding discussion, you should make this viewpoint known to WMC directly on his talk page rather than expecting he will respond again. Moreover, nobody here has suggested arbitration except you and perhaps the filing party - it is entirely unhelpful to pretend that is the course of action suggested, when the course of action suggested was WP:RFC/U; a place where users make agreements over such issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave it where you put it but I clearly associated it with the stuck marker and tghings do get archived here fairly quickly. It sounds to me that you believe WMC will ignore this WQA after his initial response. I am sorry about that if so. I will not inform WMC as I already said about this being started up and it's been less than a day since. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Lee

    Stuck
     – Subject warned by KillerChihuahua; taken to ANI also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...

    The most recent insults can be found here:

    And so on, and so on... (this list is just for the last 3-4 weeks but really, it is endless!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!)

    And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...

    I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Wikipedia (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He was blocked [24]. Based on the historical record, I don't think we can do anything for you here and recommend to post on [WP:AN/I]Gerardw (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, alright then. Thanks for the advice. Will take it up on WP:AN/I. MarioR 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to trouble ANI. I'll take this on. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (in response to the NWQA tag that originall read "extensive past history recommend WP:AN/I Gerardw (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)") Note:Extensive history? Please, its still personal attacks. No need to send it off to ANI. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course it's personal attacks. It's beyond what WQA traditionally is set up to do; historically WQA hasn't been monitored by admins. Gerardw (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it certainly used to be, I guess they all stopped watching for the same reason I took it off my list for a while - it turned into a "block request whinefest" rather than actual requests for help. A lot of the incidents filed here a while ago were of the same pattern: Bait editor you're in a dispute with until they respond with something marginally uncivil. Run to WQA and demand a block. Get block. Make your desired edits, now unopposed and with no need to actually work with editors of other views. I got tired of it, I suppose others did as well. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:43, 15 December 2009 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=331843994"