Revision as of 21:21, 17 January 2010

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 Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Activist personal attacks

I tried to discuss this with User:Activist on her/his talk page as well. Kozitt (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing no personal attacks. I see a discussion of controvertial edits - maybe I'm missing something without a good WP:DIFF that specifics the exact edit where the WP:PA took place, rather than a link to a talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think you are missing something, but you can find it firstly on the NPA page you quoted. A personal attack can be using a persons affiliations to dismiss their views and can also be suggesting affiliations without evidence. A quick look at the talk page in question gives the quote 'My assumption that Kozitt was a relative, friend, paid employee of Rehberg or was someone else with a vested interest in submurging his responsibility in the crash, such as a lobbyist from special interest whose agenda Rehberg supports, has not been dispelled by her reverts on other pages or her explanations.'. Wiki NPA policy then would suggest that user Activist had no business making such an assumption without presenting evidence of such and the suggestion constitutes a personal attack against user Kozitt. Weakopedia (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence, as I said, a diff would have been useful. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive and racist remarks made against User:Mister Flash by User:Þjóðólfr

Please see this diff - , the two immediately preceding it, and my original comment above these remarks. Mister Flash (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely uncool. Gerardw (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the initiative - by AGF, I'm going to assume that this was a one-of sequence of angry posts, as I have not seen a continuation. It's far to long past the original date to take any additional action. User:Mister Flash, the first step in resolving issues is actually discussing with the user directly, and then WQA if that does not work. You should also use the {{WQA-notice}} to advise someone that you have filed here, as it's better than saying "Reported" in a curt manner. I hope all works out. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA by User:Andy Dingley, User:Foetusized

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

Regarding User:Andy Dingley, edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trellick_Tower&diff=prev&oldid=336818298 , http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Radio_Invicta_(London_Pirate_Station)&diff=prev&oldid=336818093 , http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eric%27s_Club&diff=prev&oldid=336817799 , http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ozark_Mountain_Daredevils&diff=prev&oldid=336817698 - this is despite a recent previous request for them not to WP:AOBF. Regarding User:Foetusized, edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Radio_Invicta_(London_Pirate_Station)&diff=prev&oldid=336908096 - I protested the insult I received, but it was totally ignored on their subsequent reply. Rapido (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks. The other users have pointed out that you are engaged in POV-pushing and edit warring. Please discuss your concerns about article content on the article talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the other users have expressed their opinion (however incorrect it may be), but they have done so in a way that is not civil, and in any case is irrevelent to the article in question. Andy Dingley accuses me of bulk stealthy deletions, attempting to delete and trying to push an agenda - none of which is true. Simply I deleted text that is either unsourced or fails WP:SPS. These are personal attacks as per WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, along with WP:AOBF. Foetusized decided to call me a jerk. Now that's the sort of language I don't expect from someone I completely don't know. Again this meets WP:NPA as Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack. I have no idea how you consider all the above to be "not personal attacks" Rapido (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, the edit summaries on the diffs for Andy Dingley you gave above are not personal attacks. They do fail to assume good faith. I missed the "jerk" on the last diff. Calling you a jerk (no need to be a jerk) is a personal attack. --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True, those are not personal attacks, and they do reflect valid concerns. However, Rapido does not call them personal attacks. Rapido calls them insults, meaning he is insulted (offended) by them. Remarks addressing any person do not belong in the edit summary, and probably do not belong on the article talk page either. Andy Dingley and Foetusized would cause less offense if they refrained from such remarks in edit summaries. --Una Smith (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Rapido did refer to WP:NPA; what other policy or guideline should Rapido have referred to instead? There is the help page Misplaced Pages:Edit summary. --Una Smith (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, you are correct that these other editors' remarks are personal and insulting to you. Both editors need to stop addressing the person (you) and instead address the content dispute without imputing motives to you. However, your behavior is a problem also. Your deleting content is making these editors angry. To see the same dynamic played out between others, look on this noticeboard at User:Phoenix7777 and invalid warnings. Instead of deleting paragraphs, add {{fact}} tags and on the talk page say exactly what content needs to be sourced. --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - last time I used citation needed, I received abuse, and the tags were removed! As regards the talk page, I don't see why I should be forced to communicate with such people who use offensive language towards other editors; and I have just seen that the same person continues to assume bad faith about me in the talk pages. Rapido (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Response: I am sorry for calling Rapido a jerk. To be honest, I originally had a much stronger term in that edit summary but dialed it back before submitting it. It seems that he took diff as a demand for an apology, and I regret not responding to his concerns. I was much more focused on inviting him to a discussion on the edit war that he is engaged in. I still find this edit, where he added the "Citation needed" template after every sentence in an article, to be a poorly-thought-out knee-jerk thing, and I have no regrets in calling him on it, but I should not have made it personal -- Foetusized (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of venue: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rapido reported by User:Foetusized (Result: ). --Una Smith (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - are personal attacks outside the remit of the Wikiquette section? If so, could you please point out the section that I should have posted to. Many thanks in advance. Rapido (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the venue for them would be Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (AN). But this was an isolated remark, and Foetusized has apologized to you. I don't get why Foetusized also filed on you at AN. I do get that Foetusized was very annoyed by your heavy use of {{cn}}. When every sentence in a paragraph needs a source (as often is the case), I find it more constructive to put just one tag on the paragraph and add a note that it applies to the paragraph as a whole. You may get on better with other editors if you would take the time to find some of the needed sources. That way, instead of copious tagging readers will see copious sources, and all parties are satisfied. Yes, the burden of providing a source is on the editor who contributes the content, but I think it is good form to share the burden. --Una Smith (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA is quite clearly the forum for violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL...the intent is to get a third opinion after already trying to discuss the issue with the editor in question. Of the violations are severe enough, WP:ANI becomes the next level, and ideally a WQA patroller would recommend that to you at the time. Many cases of WP:NPA require dispute resolution: WP:AN and WP:ANI are not DR locations, whereas WQA is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Skywriter

This user has accused me of being a sockpuppet with no other reason other that I have reverted one of his edits. He has made this accusation both on my discussion page and in an article's talk page. He has also, intentionally apparently, misrepresented (lied about?) the extent of my user contributions in this edit. I have asked him to remove the accusation or at least explain why he thinks I am a sock. He stands mute. Can someone please offer some guidance on what I should do with this? I'm trying to assume good faith but from the very first this user appeared very belligerent. Thanks. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, good faith doesn't enter into it. People can be belligerent in good faith, silly as it may seem. Talking about whether he's acting in good faith doesn't lead anywhere good; trust me.

That said, he's clearly wrong about your contributions. Someone has pointed that out on his talk page, I note. You might or might not get an explanation out of him. It's not worth demanding one, because ultimately we don't have that kind of control over editors here.

There seems to be an underlying content dispute, and some reverting going on. I've commented at the talk page in question. If he keeps reverting you and insisting you're a sock, then he's out of line, but let's see what happens at The Professors... -GTBacchus 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 76.231.247.6. I see that you are annoyed, and why. That said, I think you are reading too much into Skywriter's remarks. I don't see where Skywriter accused you of being a sockpuppet. Skywriter asked if you are an established editor, and hinted that if you are and you don't say so, that might be construed as sockpuppetry. Some editors do use IPs when they are on travel or for other acceptable reasons. Or they don't realize their login has expired. Okay? When asked, they say "oh, yes I am so-and-so." Skywriter's comment about your edit history I think is a poorly worded reference to the fact that you have only two edits on Talk:The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

So, what should you do about Skywriter? I would now ignore Skywriter's questions and personal remarks to you, and get on with collaborating on the article. --Una Smith (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Una. Una the reason you don't see the sockpuppet accusation is that Skywriter later overlaid it. If interested you can find them here and here. Although I feel roughed up a bit I have decided for the time being to continued to collaborate on the talk page with the help of GTBacchus. But I'm going to ask you, Una, to consider for a moment the implications of this kind of belligerent behavior.

Someone, like myself, uses Misplaced Pages alot and decides to "give back" in a small way by correcting/improving it whenever he can. This goes along fine for a couple of months and then he is suddenly subject to a vicious attack by an established editor. He finds himself labelled as a sockpuppet for no reason. His motives, intelligence, character are called into question all because he happened to hit the wrong article and the wrong editor who guards it. Do you think this IP editor would ever come back? Especially when the offending editor has not owned up to his behavior, has made no apology or even offered up any explanation for his bad behavior? Instead he attacks again making baseless retaliatory edits like the one below. I will tell you from my own experience that this IP editor would not come back and that is a loss for the encyclopedia.

I would suggest to you that this kind of behavior should not be just ignored. Misplaced Pages has rules, laws if you will, to protect it's users from this kind of stuff. The Admins are a sort of police force. They need to be relied upon to make sure the offending editor has reason not to continue this kind of behavior. I don't know what that should be, a temporary block? I would leave that up to them. I'm not being vindictive. But this behavior needs to be countered with the strongest kind of discouragment.

Thanks for your feedback. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "admins as police" metaphor can be a little bit misleading. Since there's no real centralized authority over individuals' behavior, since we don't really have firm "rules", and since the community aspect of Misplaced Pages doesn't justify its own existence except insofar as it supports the encyclopedia... it gets complicated. An admin who acts very much like a cop is likely to be de-sysopped before too long.

You're right about new editors' reactions to being attacked personally for their edits. Our policy Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers (or WP:BITE as we call it) turns out not to be a policy, but a guideline. That distinction means nothing in the long run, but in the short run it influences how people talk about it. This board is a good place to come to in cases where there's biting going on.

Because everything here is grounded in the encyclopedia, there are really just two options for dealing with behavior issues. The preferred one is to simply move past them and get back to editing. In that case, we just need to persuade everyone to start talking about edits (either informally like this, or via something like WP:3O (third opinions) or WP:RFC (requests for comment)). If this works, then the comments about other contributors are just water under the bridge. In the effort to work on the article and not on each other, someone(s) may end up blocked for disruption if the heat gets high, in which case you want to be the one talking only about edits when the blocks start flying.

If article focus consistently fails to work, then there's the second option: You leave the article-space and work the dispute resolution process. This can take the form of reports to WP:WQA (here), WP:RFC/U (requests for comment on an editor), WP:ANI (the administrators' noticeboard, but that place is dangerous and insane), and eventually WP:ARBCOM (arbitration committe). After WQA, these avenues are only to be pursued for editors who are chronically disruptive.

I hope some of that helps, or at least makes sense. Some of it probably seems bizarre, but I'm not sure how to change how the wiki works... -GTBacchus 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Skywriter has a history of making personal attacks. APK whisper in my ear 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tanthalas39‎ (talk · contribs) and curt attitude

I recently noticed Tanthalas39, an admin, make this comment on an AN thread. I've seen him make similar comments before. I posted (perfectly civilly, as far as I'm aware) a suggestion on his talkpage that it might well be better if he were to inform the user himself in such cases, as it would save time and be helpful to other editors; this elicited an un-necessarily curt and unhelpful response.

I'm concerned not only about Tan's unwillingness to take a constructive approach in relation to the original request, but also about his attitude, which is not setting the example expected of those who have been trusted with the admin tools. I'd welcome outside input on this issue. Thanks for reading. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no comment to this, and certainly won't be watchlisting the page. Tan | 39 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The message right above seems to continue this concerning trend of incivility, as does the edit-summary and actual comment here – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While I suppose the comments on AN and his talkpage are a little 'curt', (Tan is, I take it, a man of few words...) it'd be a bit of a stretch to call them incivil - even more so to call the edit summary 'no comment' or the succinct post above problematic. Additionally, Tan does have a valid point that it's really better for the initial poster to post talkpage notices of AN/ANI threads than a third party, and as such he's well within his rights to decline your request that he post the notifications himself rather than trying to get AN threadstarters to do it. I'm not saying he's the friendliest guy on the project or anything, but a Wikiquette alert seems a bit much. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, just to clarify, my problem was primarily with this in response to a perfectly civil enquiry. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Treasury, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, there is nothing in those remarks warranting a report here, being curt is not incivil, and those initiating an ANI thread are in fact required to inform all involved parties. Asking them to do it instead of doing it for them increases the chance that they will remember the next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, the "educational" point is a good one I hadn't thought about. I notice that you instinctively phrased your explanation politely, and clearly (as in, you didn't just say, "Of course he shouldn't have done it himself,"), and now I understand. What I don't understand is why Tan couldn't have done that. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox, I did not see anything in the supplied diffs that even remotely warrants a WQA report. I would have said that Tan's posts were brief, perhaps as Beeblebox puts it, curt, but that is all. The comments are not impolite, just to the point. Given the wall of words that some editors use, I would suggest that Tan's approach may not be so bad a thing! - Nick Thorne 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Many vandals and borderline users and few admins make a lot of work: Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39. Terse yes, ideal friendly, maybe not, incivil, no. Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you seem to want Tan to spend time teaching you what (I assume) you are perfectly capable of learning by yourself. Are we done? --Una Smith (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to concur with Nick, Beeblebrox, and Van here. There's nothing here that requires a WQA report - WP:BOLD doesn't require that one clean up after someone else's mess (and as Beeblebrox says, there's reasons not to in this case). Given the pile-on, I'm marking this as done. Bfigura 21:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur also. Tan is not a problematic editor. And using few words can be seen as a plus. —mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to belabour the issue here: editors do need to learn to notify the other party. When I monitored WQA, I would not even begin to investigate unless the other party had been notified. I even created a template: that you can see here for just that reason, and I still use it. Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day...teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Piano non troppo's biasness and edit attacks

The issue started with the article "Paparazz". The above user had removed the External links section which had the official website of the artist. I had reverted it back stating that the official website is not a spam link. The user commented about this at WP:ELN and I understood that the link actually didnot have anything to do with the song. Fair enough, that dispute was resolved. After that when I nominated the article for GA, the user came and started reviewing it, although he was associated with its editing. Myself and other users, requested him to step down because before even starting the review he clearly stated that he is going to fail the article as it is a fancruft and a PR piece to promote the artist, which is counter-acted by others. He went on to add such comments as to contact the artist's management company to gain their consensus regarding the article, which is frankly absurd. Counteless requests have turned to deaf ears, with the user being extremely rude and attacking other's contributions, saying they are unprofessional and basically what we edit is "a horse piece of shit". Just now he commented about the article Madonna videography saying that

"The writing for which you pat yourself on the back (videos) is fair at best, and in the article in question is weak, and shows a superficial understanding of the topic that is gleaned from fan and public relation sources. When my many acquaintances in the academic community scorn Misplaced Pages content, rest assured, they are referring to unprofessional work such as yours which admits of no professional criticism."

I believe this is extremely rude and a joke of good faith. Not to sound WP:WAX, there are countless editors in Misplaced Pages who look up to the way I develop music related articles for GA and FAs and they would beg to differ. Under the veil of being professional, the user is directing such personal insults to others. I have requested comments from editors of teh artist's page, regarding do I really add crap to articles? --Legolas 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, you have worked very hard over these past few months to get the article up to the fantastic standard of which it is. If it were not for your contributions, I really doubt the quality would be anywhere near as good. Per WP:GAN, articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. From what I gather, if this particular user has contributed to the article, whilst also engaging in a content dispute, they are therefore not valid to compose a review. • вяαdcяochat 12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an unbiased, casual, "non-admin" editor watching this page, I must comment that I see absolutely no "joke of good faith" on User:Piano non troppo's part. He is editing WP, which is a dynamic process, and sometimes feelings get hurt as a result (awww...). Being "extremely rude" is open to interpretation; but violating WP policies is not, and I personally see no evidence of User:Piano non troppo doing that. I see no reason for this alert; a minor "squabble" at best... Doc9871 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, calling others contribution as fancruft and unprofessional and promoter of an artist's PR is not a joke of good faith? --Legolas 12:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think so. Unprofessional is an irrelevant tautology -- this is Misplaced Pages. Anyone can edit. Gerardw (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legolas2186 has been hostile and uncooperative from the outset, beginning with a minor correction.

Legolas2186 himself is introducing the words "bias", "vandalism", and "piece of shit" into the discussion. These are nothing I intended. He's adopting hyperbole to put an emotional spin where there was none. I.e., he wants to treat this on an emotional level, rather than a factual one.

Calling something "fancruft" seems to be a relatively to-the-point description of "She pretended to play an enormous keytar to end the song while standing on a revolving platform that span round to reveal her buttocks to the crowd."

Understand the history, here. Legolas2186 pays little attention to constructive comments, and treats a variety of observations as personal attacks. If I understand, Legolas2186's perception of bias started at the moment I removed a single external link (!) Then I identified potential problems with other three external links. I explained my reasoning, for example here . He did not respond directly to some justifications for edits (that one external link was possibly a copyright violation, that another went to an empty page, or that the third did not mention the article topic), but chose to see this as "bias" and "vandalism". Looking at the edit history for Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song), notice I changed the article exactly twice — with two neutral comments — and then never touched it again — hardly an edit war.

Legolas2186 feels he's done a good job on Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) and that it should be GA. I don't feel that way. Rather than address the issues, Legolas2186 has chosen to see this as "bias". Rather than deal with problems with his edits, and a range of constructive suggestions on how to improve an article, he chooses to shoot the messenger. I would say calling my edits "vandalism" is incorrect, that seeing bias where there is none as nonconstructive, and this statement "you were associated in an edit content disagreement" as a deliberate misrepresentation of two minor edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what you are actually implying by calling me a PR promoter for Lady Gaga and challenging my contributions to Misplaced Pages as unprofessional and not as standard. Pray which standard are you talking about? And what veil of professionalism do you intend to address my contributions and additions to? I have addressed your reviewing of the above article as biased viewpoint because your initial intention is to fail the article and with that in mind you have started the review. Having 2 or more contributions doesnot change teh fact that you were aware of the article's position and didnot probably like the way it was written from a previous point. But instead of chosing to discuss them you chose to randomly go and start the review. And frankly what improvements are you talking about? Absurd things like contacting the artist's management to gain their consensus for the article? A number of users and respected editors have mentioned and explained it to you time and again that if a song's recording process is not available, then it cannot simply be added. What do you actually suggest, add my own original thesis in it? you have repeatedly ignored other's requests to step down from the review and ignored consensus. --Legolas 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

None of which is a WQA issue. Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The current exchange began with Legolas's statement Your above statements simply show that you are letting your biasness come in the way of your review which is a comment about the contributor, not content. The reply above is on Piano non troppo's talk page after the unnecessary repetition of an accusation of bias. I don't feel Piano non troppo's actions are sufficiently egregious to require any further action or discussion. Gerardw (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like Piano non troppo to actually provide the sources where there is a mention of the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment. This is the same comment he put on the "Bad Romance" talk page, I really don't know how are someone expecting that we put this information when is not available, that would be original research, and like another user said before that does not compromise the comprehensive criteria of a GA article, the guidelines for a song suggest that we add critical reviews, chart performance and charts sections, which the user believes are to promote Lady Gaga. If the user have a problem with the guidelines he should suggest them at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Songs, or perhaps nominate all of the featured articles songs for a removal. Frcm1988 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please continue dialog on the article page Talk:Paparazzi_(Lady_Gaga_song). Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Gerardw, I would like to ask you how would you feel if I call your contributions to Misplaced Pages as fancruft and trying to promote an artist? The discussion was raised in respect to both contributer's accusations and article's content, so I don't see any reason as to why the discussion should suddenly be closed. Surely that's what WQA is all about. --Legolas 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What WQA is about is user conduct, not content. WP:NPA makes it fairly clear that comments directed at content are not personal attacks, in fact, it even advises users to comment on content as opposed to commenting on users. Piano has (as far as I can see) only commented on content here. Therefore you need to resolve this at a content level and at a more appropriate forum/discussion page. Trying to bring it up to an emotional level is inappropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK so calling other's contributions as fancruft and other user's as PR promoter is not WP:NPA? Wonderful. --Legolas 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the comment is directed at the content, no, it's not a personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can somebody look as to why the bottom of the page is being covered up? --Legolas 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That happens when the page is slow to load or render in your browser. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The WQA issue lies in comments such as "unprofessional work such as yours", which address both the content and the contributor. User:Piano non troppo would do well to leave the contributor out of it, and address the content purely on its own merits. User:Legolas2186 would do well to give such ad hominem comments the attention they deserve: none. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no wrongdoings from User:Legolas2186. The article contains exactly what other GAs, even FAs, about songs contain. The quantity of information User:Piano non tropo claims is ridiculous. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I read all of the conversation and I see not too much of an attack against Legolas; there are some subtle moves and "unprofessional work such as yours" directly refers to an specific editor, not the content itself. In my perspective, Legolas did wonderfully with the article and is in no way fancruft. Maybe a bit less emphasis on clothes for live performances, other than tours and premieres, I there is no need of that. But overall, Legolas does a great job with the article and the article is worthy of a GA. And as far reviewing it goes, that does seem a bit suspicious. -- ipodnano05 * 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by 78.32.143.113

The user at IP address 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a prolific contributor to Misplaced Pages, mainly on automotive subjects. However, unfortunately, when other editors disagree with his opinions, he (I shall presume the masculine gender here for the sake of brevity) seems to prefer reverting other users' edits instead of engaging in constructive debate and consensus building. When an attempt is made to discuss objections to his edits, he doesn't always respond, is often antagonistic and dogmatic when he does, and sometimes won't consider other editors' opinions and advice until an Administrator gets involved (for instance, here or here).

Examples of this user's activity that myself and other editors have questioned include the following (I've tried to list the events in chronological order):

• In various articles, insisting that "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen AG" are one and the same (actually, the former is a business group; the latter is the parent company of the former):

• Porsche: edit ("Volkswagen AG (known in English as Volkswagen Group)")
• Volkswagen Group: revert edit
• my attempt to engage in debate
• ETKA: revert

• MAN SE: Insisting that "MAN Group" and "MAN SE" are one and the same (again, the latter is the parent company of the former): edit revert - my attempt to engage in debate

• Insisting on referring to Volkswagen Group as "VWAG" in various WP articles (actually "VWAG" is rarely used, either by VW Group itself or by secondary sources, and leads to confusion between the group and the parent company, so using it improves neither the clarity or accuracy of the articles, IMHO). Examples include:

• List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines: revert - first attempt to engage in debate on user talk page
• List of Volkswagen Group factories: edit
• List of Volkswagen Group platforms: revert - user talk page discussion - edit
• List of Volkswagen engines: edit
• Volkswagen Group: revert revert - talk page discussion - revert

• Volkswagen Group and Christian Wulff: confusing the Landtag (legislative assembly) of Lower Saxony with the State of Lower Saxony, resulting in an edit war: revert revert revert edit - user talk page discussion - talk page discussion

• Unit Injector: Insisting that the "English translation" of the German phrase "Pumpe-Düse" is actually "Pumpe Düse" (sic): edit revert - user talk page discussion

• Using Template:TOC left and Template:TOC right in various articles (e.g. edit edit edit) where they where they are not necessary, contrary to advice in Help:Section and the template documentation, and despite warnings from other editors:

• first discussion on user talk page
• second discussion on user talk page
• ETKA: edit revert revert

• List of Volkswagen Group factories: insisting on inappropriate over-categorization to the extent of edit-warring: revert revert revert revert - my first attempt at debate - revert - my second attempt at debate - revert - third opinion sought at guideline talk page

In addition his edit summaries sometimes get a bit personal: .

— Letdorf (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

Agreed. This IP seems utterly disinterested in the possibility of being incorrect on various points. Seems like a habit fit for breaking. --King Öomie 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of content-related issues noted above, which clearly are outside the bounds of WP:WQA. WP:TEND does not tend to be actionable from this forum.

• You might want a simple WP:RFC on the changes or even a third opinion first.
• Long-term patterns of behaviour are dealt with at WP:RFC/U - this would include acting out of consensus, etc.
• When relability of sources are in question, the reliable sources noticeboard is the place to go.
• If actual edit-warring/violations of the three-revert rule then WP:AN3 is your best forum for action.
• Although you have given diff's of some edit summaries that are borderline questionable, they are from December 2 and December 22 - far outside the boundaries of even providing a minor warning.

From what I see, if you deal with the article-related issues in the correct forum first, you will avoid antagonism, resolve the core issues, and in theory the occasional uncivil behaviour will subside. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with User:Andy Dingley

Regarding User:Andy Dingley, first diff. is from 28th December 2009: Merseyland Alternative Radio (2nd nomination), I protested the WP:AOBF and asked him not to assume (non existent) bad faith here: Merseyland Alternative Radio (2nd nomination)

Then a number of edit summaries were assuming the same on 9th January 2010: Trellick Tower, Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station), Eric's_Club and Ozark Mountain Daredevils - I did post a Wikiquette request above (and he was informed of this).

Finally a post on his talk page appeared to-day 13th January 2010: User talk:Andy Dingley

I have no problem with him disagreeing with my edits, but I am getting tired of his continuing to claim to everyone that I am making "bad faith" edits, especially when I already explained they were not, and asked him not to assume such things in future. Rapido (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with your edits, not with you. This has already been taken to 3RR, at least two other editors are involved, and your edits to yet another article (which I haven't even read, let alone edited) now appear likely to drag you off to WP:RFC as well. Stop playing the wounded martyr. When three different editors are telling you that your edits are WP:TENDENTIOUS, it's time to look at whether it's your behaviour that's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that you conveniently wiped your talk page (and its catalogue of other editors questioning your judgement) immediately before posting this. You are of course entirely within wikilaw to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I admit that I broke the 3RR rule, that's fair enough - that's a completely unrelated matter. Not sure what you are talking about playing the wounded martyr and comments about my behaviour, and I take exception to that personal attack, and it seems you have a problem with me overall. All I can see is that you disagree with my edits because they interfere with your edits. However those edits have either been unsourced, and I cannot tell if some of the edits are in fact WP:OR, or the sources are mostly pirate radio fansites, and fail WP:RS, WP:SPS. Rather than badmouthing a fellow editor, why don't you find reliable and verifiable sources for your additions? Rapido (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have in the past added sources to these two pirate radio articles (once again, I agree with you that most of them aren't notable), including the relevant local newspaper the Liverpool Echo, a number of websites that are admittedly very fansitey, and there's also the conceptnews website that seems to be attempting to be a rather more comprehensive and robust history of UK pirate radio. I recently pointed you towards a couple of in-print books on pirate radio history. Yet the level of commentary from those seeking deletion has been to sneer at the webhosts used with "LOL" and "We should probably task a bot to remove all those links". Now who's failing to AGF? As these articles have been recreated (AFAIK independently) by three different editors, and you've AfDed each of them in turn, this is not an environment conducive to consensus or collaborative work to improve the articles (I for one have better things to do than to feed your scrap bin). I also note that you've still (AFAIK) failed to even notify the last article creator of your AfD (as per policy), despite being reminded.

At root here, we have a notability issue over two poor articles, on topics that are of niche interest (but still I would submit, worthy of coverage) from a fringe (and indeed illegal) activity that pre-dates the web. Such articles are perennially difficult for quality sources. I don't like or agree with your claim of non-notability, but if consensus AfDs the article, then I have always been happy to follow our larger community practice and let it lie (I'm not the one re-creating). If I should happen to find a new source that I think would convince you, then I might do so. Yet despite the non-controversial nature of these articles (WP:N arguments are far from major) you're now calling for the topics to be WP:SALTed, a thoroughly disproportionate response. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Firstly, it wasn't me who said "LOL" and "We should probably task a bot to remove all those links", that was someone else, and I for one disagree with whoever claims that using certain webhosts (I think it was Geocities) somehow reduces the credibility of the website. It's the content of the website that matters, not what server it's on. Secondly, User:Erwin85Bot automatically informs the relevant editors of articles about AFDs for those articles, altho' I am not aware of any obligation on myself to inform them. Regarding Radio Jackie North, it appears to have been deleted thrice before, and comes back more or less the same content each time, so I have no objections to a WP:SALT on the article name. Rapido (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So by SALTing, you admit that you refuse any GF on behalf of separate editors, independently seeing cause for an article on this station? To remind you from WP:SALT, repeatedly recreated by an editor. Not "multiple editors all agreeing it's a good idea", but the (sadly not unknown) case where one editor becomes a law unto themselves and refuses to accept a community consensus. This non-hostile situation is certainly not what SALT is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, that statement is almost unreadable with the urls displayed; may I refactor it (fix it)? --Una Smith (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - please do so; I am not sure how to make them cute and small. Rapido (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, for the good of everyone's word-wrap. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido and Andy Dingley, I am pleased to see you discussing the content dispute. But could you please not discuss it here? This forum is for issues of user conduct, specifically incivility. Here is what I have to say about your conduct. Rapido, could you try some approaches other than tagging every sentence in a paragraph with {{cn}}, and deleting the paragraph? That might include now and then finding a reliable source or two for some of what you want sourced. Andy Dingley, rather than objecting to Rapido's reverts and tagging, could you try to find more and better sources? Both of you, spend less energy on being annoyed by each other and more on improving those articles. Finding good sources can be a chore but someone has to do it, or the articles will remain in their current state. --Una Smith (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - regarding the citation needed tags, I put these on the Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station) page, and they were removed less than 3 hours later, and I made no attempt to reinstate them. However it still seems to be brought up by various editors, irrelevant to the topic at hand as it may be. I still take exception to Andy Dingley's comments such as attempting to delete article post AfD keep by stripping content in stages, trying to push an agenda, bulk stealthy deletions, etc. as they are incorrect and it's somewhat offensive to be told you're doing something that you're not. Rapido (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Una for your fair and balanced comments here. I have no intention to waste further time on these articles - for some time I've been entirely reactive here, not pro-active. If someone asks for a direct response they might get it, but I've not even edited the articles in question (in this incarnation). I see them as that sad part of WP that's simply beyond my abilities to fix, and there's no point in wasting effort on it. It's a mistake to think, "This topic needs coverage on Misplaced Pages". Topics don't need anything of the sort: sometimes Misplaced Pages might need coverage of them, but any worthwhile topic continues to exist, no matter how incomplete or inaccurate Misplaced Pages itself is. As for Rapido, I'd ask if you've ever read Misplaced Pages:WP:V is not a suicide pact? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yes I've seen that, but it's only an essay which contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors, not a policy or even a guideline. Rapido (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see that the pages have now been deleted and SALTed (without further discussion) by user:Cirt. Well done Rapido, it shows that ignoring 3RR and decrying newspaper refs with "LOL" work so much better than consensus approaches. Hope you're pleased. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - When did I decry newspaper refs with "LOL"? The 3RR issue (which I did NOT ignore) was on an unrelated article, yet again, you are bringing it up. I am sure other editors here can make up their own mind whether you have a problem with me or not, and that you are continuing to assume bad faith. Rapido (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle pt 2

QueenofBattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Personal attacks on own user page, calling other editors WP:DICKs. ]. Although user page is templated retired, user continues to edit ]. Gerardw (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DICK is an accepted essay ... the use of it in this manner although frowned upon has been held as considered "ok", as the essay describes specific types of activities that are considered to be "dickish". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an accepted essay, but that doesn't make calling someone a "WP:DICK" a good idea. Most situations where that essay applies are terrible places to actually cite it. It's entirely likely to add heat to a situation, and entirely unlikely to produce the desired effect on the other party's behavior. -GTBacchus 19:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The essay itself states The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick”.Gerardw (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She also calles them "tools", but links "tools" to the page on "wanker". Spitfire 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

...actually, the wanker/tools comment is grammatically meant for more than just the one editor :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, grammatically it was for 3 named users. That doesn't make it any better, it is still a personal attack, which I have removed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Weakopedia (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling people names is foolish behavior on Misplaced Pages. It leads to WQA reports. Anyone wishing to focus on article writing would do well to avoid a lot of wasted time by simply not calling people names. There's nothing complicated about it, and nobody should have to read any policy page to know what it means to treat others well. Just do it. -GTBacchus 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, folks, why is this coming up again? The first bad faith WQA made against me (by another editor who engaged in attacks against me, no notification, etc.) was closed. This second bad faith WQA also seems to be running to resolution. The reference to the essay is acceptable, although ill advised (thanks for the advice), and the rest is a statement of fact. Those editors have made it very easy for me to make the decision to try to retire. What does anyone consider a personal attack? Please cite specifics and I'll take it under advisement. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Referring to a specific user as a DICK is a full-out personal attack, whether or not you believe it to be the truth - comment on edits, never editors. Calling others wankers, although not a direct PA, is still uncivil. You would quickly find your userpage/talkpage deleted should you retire with them there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Saying: "The editors who I have had dissagrements with have made it very easy for me to leave the project" would be acceptable.

Saying: "Don't be a dick your entire lives, huh? You tools/wanker have made it very easy for me to retire" is not acceptable, WP:CIVIL states clearly that things such as "Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" are all unacceptable. Please remove the wanker, tools and dick comments. Kind regards, Spitfire 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Spitfire, you are the first editor to ask me nicely and respectfully (or to even ask me, come to think of it) to remove the text that you consider to be personal attacks. The other self-appointed politeness mall cops have merely sought to remove them from my user page in contravention of stated policy. Let that be a lesson to you folks. I do not consider the words to be personal attacks, but I am happy to remove the dick and tool/wanker references. The points have been well-made at this point. Regards, QueenofBattle (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not logical to send a request to a retired Misplaced Pages editor. Gerardw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F states "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis original). So saying "you have made it very easy for me to retire." is a personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is a statement of fact. If you still believe it is a personal attack, find someone to block me. Enough with this. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is your position QueenofBattle, then consider this a final warning regarding personal attacks. You may not consider words like "wanker" etc to be a personal attack but they in fact are when used to insult someone. I far prefer your idea of removing the insults than your other idea of getting blocked. Chillum 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already removed what Spitfire considers to be personal attacks, largely because he/she asked nicely. The rest need to work on their bedside manners lest they take their, umm, duties, too seriously. Block if you must, I am trying to retire. If others want to remove from their pages what they think are personal attacks, they are more than welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but saying someone led to or helped in your decision to retire is not really a personal attack in my opinion. The name calling is unambiguous though. Chillum 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it. WP:Duck and all that. How can a statement saying "you made it easy for me to leave" improve Misplaced Pages? Gerardw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, I consider this matter closed. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, as one of the editors that Queen was making personal attacks against,, and I did consider them personal attacks, I mentioned it to Queen on her talk page and Queen removed it ]. Then Queen executed several personal attacks on me, ] for the lovely edit summary and the entire section is Queen making more personal attacks so if there is an option up there for blocking, I'd support it. RTRimmel (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RTRimmel knows full well that I am a male, so to continue to refer to me as a female can only be uncivil, at best, and a personal attack, at worst. The first bad faith WQA (not bothering to notify me) coupled with misquoting me on his user page should be viewed with skepticism by the community as to his motivations and prejudice as to his request to have me blocked. I have no intentions to return to editing, and was trying to retire, when RTRimmel came to my talk page to protest (via his own personal attack) what I have placed on my user page. Then we've got other editors claiming they didn't feel the need to simply ask me to remove the remarks (which I did when asked) because it's "not logical to send a request to a retired Misplaced Pages editor," yet felt the need to open this second WQA after the first was closed, because I was "still editing." Which one is it? Either way Gerardw is wrong and has wronged me. The whole thing stinks. And, to think there is wonder and amazement as to why I've decided to retire from Misplaced Pages?! Onerem seems to have a reasonable approach to me. We all should take his/her advice and let this unfortunate and bizarre episode expire of natural causes. I've enjoyed all the years editing here; thanks, community, for the parting gift. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. There's no reason to block now based on comments from over a week ago, especially if the editor truly plans to retire. The user page comments have been tamed down a bit. Please just let it drop and see if QueenofBattle is also willing to let it drop. If they retire, the result on your future experience is the same. If they don't, and attacks continue, then bring it back to the attention of the community. --Onorem♠Dil 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been adressed - see QoBs counter WQA posted below. By their actions it does not seem that user QoB has any intention of retiring or letting anything drop - that 'Retired' notice has been on their page for a long time now. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia should AGF. I have stated I plan to retire and when this unfortunate episode has come to an end, I can assure you I will comfortably retire. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Javanbakht

• Personal attacks and incivility .
• The article Taraneh Javanbakht is nominated for AFD. The user:Javanbakht is the same person in article which is nominated for AFD (She has stated it in Misplaced Pages). She is participating in discussions in this AFD which is clearly violation of WP:COI--WIMYV? (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been warned and directed to WP:COI. warrior4321 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JFYI, the editor has been[REDACTED] since 2006 (with different account) She has been blocked several times in fa,wiki for incivility.--WIMYV? (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't really look at what happens in wikis of other languages for consideration of blocking in the English wiki. It seems that the article has a lot of promotion in it. Most (if not all) sources seem unreliable. I just removed some very obvious ones. warrior4321 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WIMYV, Please notify the user of the alert. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--WIMYV? (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, the user removed the notification without response. However, judging by the edit summary, this seems to be a cross-wiki problem as the user mentions insults in fawiki articles. to talk history for convenience. --Taelus (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has retired. I am closing this as resolved. warrior4321 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

She repeated her personal attack calling me and others "minor people" . You will know about her unacceptable behavior more. Please keep your eyes on her. She is use to insulting people and then claiming others are not civil! She is already blocked for incivility in Fa.wiki. She always says she would leave wiki when she is in danger of punishment, but she will come back after a while.--WIMYV? (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gurch

Seriously, what's up with Gurch (talk · contribs)? This is a certainly troubling edit, blatantly saying "all ifd taggers are gay." Here, he snaps at a user over their using "HG" instead of "Huggle" to reference his creation. On three separate occasions, he blanked and redirected the WP:FRP page, even saying that the person who undid the redirect was being uncooperative. His erratic behavior is hardly new, either, if this vandalism from June is any indication. Overall, he comes across as very anti-social, and at times just plain rude -- the "all ifd taggers are gay" comment is, IMO, the final straw. I don't care that he did create Huggle; no user should ever get a free pass for such egregious rudeness. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the pointless template creations, such as {{Om nom nom}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 12:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

...and of course you have asked him this very question yourself first? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Other users have already called him out on his rudeness and he's only responded with more rudeness and arguing (see here for one example) or not at all. I really don't think I'd get anything different if I asked him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 13:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, how about "...and you have advised him of this WQA report, as required?" Based on what you're saying, there's likely little that WQA can do ... RFC/U becomes more of an option, and even then ... ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the situation, I agree with Bwilkins, a RFC/U may do better in this scenario, as the user has been previously warned, talked to and trouted for situations, so I don't think there is much we can do here. --Taelus (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Notified user of this thread. --Taelus (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I'm not sure if RFC/U is the right way to go yet. I might try it anyway though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Prestonmcconkie

While it appears to me that edits made by User:Prestonmcconkie often improve and tighten language in articles, he has an unfortunate tendency to be offensive and/or insulting in his edit summaries. He's been queried about his civility on several previous occasions, including on his talk page, but as far as I can see he has neither responded nor altered his behaviour; I recently requested once more that he moderate this, but seemingly to no avail, so I am mentioning it here. This is a long-standing problem; back in July 2009 on the Calvin and Hobbes talk page, he said this and was cautioned by multiple users without response or result. A quick glance at his contributions shows that he often provides no summaries, but that they are often questionable when they are provided. Here are a few of the most egregious examples from the past month or so: , , , , and . Since my request on 6 January, he briefly stopped providing any summaries at all, but now edits like this have begun to appear again. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In my judgement those examples would already be sufficient to justify a block for incivility -- Prestonmcconkie is advised to exercise a much greater degree of restraint in his interactions with other editors. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Behavior clearly unacceptable and there are prior warnings on his talk page. I'd suggest moving this to RFC/U if there is no response in the next couple days. Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz routinely using rv tool in content disputes

From what I gather, User:Justin A Kuntz has been rather routinely using the rv tools rather than providing appropriate edit summaries in content disputes. When I reminded him on his talk page that this is impolite, he proceeded to use the reversion tool to remove the reminder. His next edit on his user talk page removes a similar remark from another user. I'm not sure if this is a big issue, and I've had few (if any) other interactions with the user, but I have to say it disturbs me when users routinely remove from their talk page all indication that they've been warned about their behavior, especially when the remove it in a manner highly analogous to what they've just been warned about. - Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, Wiki states clearly that removing a warning shows that the user has received that warning. Weakopedia (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, however, if he is using the Rollback tool to remove those warnings. That tool is only to be used to undo edits that are explicitly vandalism. Using it in content disputes, or even to remove valid discussions from their own userpage is an improper use. That said, nobody in WQA can remove the tool as it is an admin function. Go to WP:ANI, provide diffs from where it was not used properly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We permit huge numbers of warnings to the outright vandals. We ought to extend a similar courtesy to those editors who are in any way GF, but making some knowing or ignorant mis-use of a particular tool or feature. Warn them, with links to the relevant policy. You can always shoot them afterwards if they keep doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The notion that rollback is solely for reverting vandalism is a misconception. Using rollback to remove recent comments on your own user talk page is unusual but not problematic (just assume the edit summary is "tidying up my user talk page".) This user has for some time had a notice at the top of his talk page saying "If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I tend to delete quite a few to keep the page tidy. I don't see the point in archiving niff naff and trivia." That seems reasonable to me. The only problem I'd see would be use of rollback by an indefinitely blocked editor on his user talk page to remove an active "indefinitely blocked" notice--but then the problem would be the removal and not the method of removal. --TS 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

True, "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space". It's the use in content disputes that would of course be concerning, and would need to be addressed in a forum such as WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging NWQA. Repost if user continues inappropriate rollback on content pages. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The allegation is untrue, I don't use rollback in "content" disputes. Justin talk 21:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's no defence though. Rollback has been removed for non-rollback manual reversion when this was a third reversion, also for reversions where a majority of editors agreed that it was simple vandalism but an admin didn't (self-fulfillingly, this thus makes it "controversial", and so not deemed an appropriate case for rollback). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Being innocent is no defence? Is this a Kafka novel? Justin talk 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It happens. You know what this place is like 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone actually think to check the diffs above, supposedly where I used rollback. Anyone who had done so would have found that I did not use rollback. It would be appreciated that people check allegations before commenting on them. Justin talk 21:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I did check -- I thought Undid in edit history meant the changes were rolled back. How did you remove the comments from your talk page? Gerardw (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't, I simply selected a series of messages, did a diff and hit the undo hyperlink, added an edit summary and voila. You can spot the difference from a rollback as you can't add an edit summary with rollback. Justin talk 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a couple of utils that allow one to use edit summaries with rollback :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that. I also don't really see the point, I use rollback for vandal patrol because its quicker, nothing else. Justin talk 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn

After encountering issues of page ownership, reversions, and rude edit summaries ignoring my attempt to communicate from William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) regarding United States Secretary of Energy, I brought my concerns and request for third opinions to WT:FLC (since the page is an FL). When confronted by other users as well, he responds with rude personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and uncalled-for criticism of WP:FL. His response to assertations of page WP:OWNership are to make a WP:POINT by removing his contributions to the article. Also note that Saturn was blocked just three days ago, but was unblocked under the condition that he agree to edit cooperatively, which has obviously not been kept. Reywas92 04:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn is a meanie. --William Saturn (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with Reywas' assessment, particularly the ownership of articles issue, as William has demanded of respected editor and FL director Dabomb87 "What basis in policy do you have to change articles around as you see fit?" at WT:FLC. Considering the existence of WP:BOLD, WP:5P, and WP:IAR, this is a particularly tendentious question, especially considering that this contributor has been with the project since May of 2008 and has likely been exposed to these basic principles before. I'm also particularly troubled by his seemingly unrepentant attitude so soon after his recent block for edit warring, and the subsequent unblock in which he agreed to "edit cooperatively". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Based on this ] promise, his Meanie commment above, and current behavior, it seems unlikely WQA will be able to do much. You may want to post an RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• When Saturn calls himself a "meanie", maybe he's trying to say that he's just average. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that this WQA will not be of much use. The best thing to do is to focus on the content and ignore the below-the-belt comments. If Saturn continues said behavior, then perhaps an RFC/U can be considered, but I think the best thing everyone to do is temporarily disengage. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging personal attacks by User:RTRimmel

Editor has continued to make disparaging comments by referring to me in the female context here, here, and here when he knows (or should have known) that I am a male. Additionally, he has accused me of POV pushing and has taken my words out of context. From No personal attacks: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. I consider these to be personal attacks. Other comments from uninvolved editors are welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The first reference you supply is from your own WQA, the second in quick succession, where you were admonished for calling the user you are complaining about a 'dick', a 'tool' and a 'wanker'. You say that RTRs remarks at you own WQA are disparaging by referring to you as female, but you reference a discussion held some 9 months ago. Your userpage is blanked as 'retired' so since you have the word 'Queen' in your username and have posted no information stating your gender on your talk page and last discussed the matter with RTR 9 months ago it is quite a stretch of the imagination to regard this as a disparaging remark. What do you have against females anyway?

In fact the first three references are from the last week or so, 9 months after the discussion you had with RTR. You are a 'retired' user with no talk page and Queen in your name, it is natural for anyone to assume that you are female, and it is not the responsibility of every Wikipedian to check back through history to discover the gender of the person they are talking to. In a world of faceless online contributors 'he' and 'she' are simply abbreviations designed to improve the flow of conversation.

If you have a problem with being assumed as female it is your responsibility to do something about it, not the communities. The fact that you talked to RTR 9 months ago about this and are only complaining about RTR calling you female during this last week, it is obvious that you should have first spoken to RTR about it rather than levered the matter into a WQA. 9 months is a long time, long enough to forget that a 'retired' user is female or not.

Let us not forget the manner in which you decided to approach RTR about this 9 months ago. You opened your statement to RTR with 'Look you condescending SOB' which is hardly good etiquette nor a great way to diffuse a situation. Referring to someone on Misplaced Pages as a 'son of a bitch' is considered bad etiquette, and certainly a poor way to begin a section designed to address what you see as bad etiquette.

As to the rest of your complaint, the reference you provide shows that in the discussion with RTR about your NPOV or lack thereof you begin by saying 'Waah, waah. Umm, wanker'. You have already been admonished for the use of such language on Misplaced Pages. You will of course know that 'Wanker is a pejorative term of English origin, common in Commonwealth and ex Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It initially referred to an onanist but has since become a general insult.'. Your use of the term is explicitly insulting, and from your own WQA above it is obvious that you intended it to be such.

Misplaced Pages policy on civility is clear and says that 'Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment.', however the references that you have supplied do not show that you have followed this policy. Weakopedia (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RTR and I have a long history together on Misplaced Pages, both working together and working against each other. It is very clear that RTR knows I am not female, and so his continual (but oddly, not consistent) use of female terminology can only be a personal insult. It matters not what I think of females (I happen to like and respect them), and it matters not if RTR thinks I insulted him first. His actions, which are all he has control over, have been to insult me purposesly because his feeling are hurt, I suspect. As for the rest, Weakopedia, you have failed to see humor and sarcasm when it is preent. By reading the whole text from nine months ago, and not merely the title, one can clearly see that we were having a cordial discussion but using slightly crass language. It's also unfortunate Weakopedia that you have assumed that I lack NPOV. I asked for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Given that you have engaged in a heated discussion with me yesterday about your actions, and then removed my comments that you didn't like but left the rest, you are not univolved. You appear to have taken RTR's side, even though he has engaged in the very same activities for which you are attempting to adomonish me. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not 'taken sides', I simply gave some context. My comment does not suggest that you have any point of view in particular, if you read carefully you will see that I was referring to the discussion between you and RTR on the matter - I have made no claims whatsoever regarding POV. You can ask for what you consider to be uninvolved editors to respond but doing so does not change the guidelines for who may respond. If you were 'heated' in our previous conversation then you were the only one, I find matters such as this insufficient to become heated over. And once you had brought that conversation to a close yet insisted on reopening it I informed you that discussion would be better continued elsewhere and discontinued the conversation. I received your messages, their deletion served as notification of that fact. If there has been more relevant contact between you and RTR during the intervening 9 months then please try to supply the diffs rather than rely on a 9 month out of date conversation. This enables the uninvolved editors you seek to come to a reasonable conclusion. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hostility and attitude from 98.248.32.44

Earlier today I noticed 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · block log) tagging a number of articles for CSD, PROD, and AfD. I noticed his AfD nominations were going incomplete, as the WP:AFD subpage for discussion was not being created. I completed several (three I believe) of his nominations by creating the appropriate pages. It is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie Bone and the Hidden King that the anonymous user has decided to take offense to my assumption of his lack of knowledge. Please note this diff, which in my opinion borders on, if not constitutes, a personal attack. He soon removed this comment and replaced it with another. Of course all page history is available.

He edits and talks like a user with experience, reverting vandalism and removing unreferenced/poorly referenced material, but at the same time shows a remarkable disrespect for the ideals of civility, discussion, compromise, etc. I have been tracking this user's edits, removing speedy deletion tags from a couple articles that do not qualify for speedy deletion. In the process I have noticed him removing redlinks from articles potentially against the guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Red link, which state that red links serve as notices that new articles can/should be created. I have further seen him be sharp with other anonymous editors (see this talk page) over the issue.

I placed two notices on his talk page, one in regards to personal attacks, another in regards to treatment of newcomers. Both were removed, as I was labeled a "sour grape".

While this user may know how to click his way around Misplaced Pages I feel he really needs a break to review ALL Misplaced Pages policies, particularly WP:CIVIL, and work on interpersonal skills. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• IMO, should take this to ANI for swifter reaction. --Dave 09:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

• Kripalu Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was hoping to join the discussion on the talk page at this article, but my initial attempts were met by a personal attack by editor Calamitybrook, not against me, but against another editor, Sinneed. I think both editors may have valid points but I'm not sure how to get them talking to each other and to me. Rees11 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give some more specific links to the events at issue? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. The immediate issue is the personal attack at Talk:Kripalu_Center#Sinneed Disgraces Himself With Edits; Could Be Ideal Administrator: "Ironic perhaps, that Sinneed endlessly refers to minutia of Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines and makes various related, obnoxiously self-righteous comments, and then utterly trashes this talk page, ignoring the most basic and simple principles of WP, in order, purely, to push his peculiar and personal point of view, which he refuses to explain or justify..." My apologies if I've mis-read this as a personal attack, maybe it's just spirited debate. Rees11 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for Calamitybrook here. Sinneed seems abolutely determined to keep tags on that article, and has never given any sort of useful information about what the problem is. I myself removed the tags once, but haven't kept watch on the article since. I really can't spot anything in the article that justifies accusations of non-neutrality -- can you? Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the non-neutrality, but I do think the COI tag should be removed (I came to the article from the COI noticeboard). I've found it impossible to discuss the removal on the talk page due to the actions of both editors. I too have a lot of sympathy for Calamitybrook's position on the article contents, and I think that editor would make better progress by resorting to reasoned debate on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of impropriety...too much, or is this acceptable? You tell me.

I'm being constantly accused of a number of things by User:Jclemens. He started off by accusing me of sockpuppetry, and then when the investigation he initiated came back in my favor, switched to allegations of meatpuppetry. Not just once, but over and over again. Then it was dishonesty. Now its "tenditious editing, editwarring, refusal to get the point, and assumed ownership." He's threatening to "report me." He's calling me "clueless." Two other editors have asked him to stop focusing on my behavior and focus on the issues.

Allegations of sock/meatpuppetry:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Unreferenced.3F
• Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=331736929

All other issues mentioned above:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Essay_Tag

Personal attacks:

• User_talk:Jclemens#Answer_to_your_comment....

I would love a review of both my behavior and his to better understand where I may have gone off-track, if anywhere, and how I should handle this sort of situation in the future. I am totally open to constructive criticism. Thank you for your consideration. ɳoɍɑfʈ 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that filing a WQA immediately after a Medcab case has been opened at your request is a good idea -- in fact if I were the mediator it would probably cause me to close the case. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? ɳoɍɑfʈ 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pan-Celticism#Flag

Can someone have a word with User:MacRusgail in regards to his comments and tone at Pan-Celticism

Personal attacks, incivility and accusations of POV-pushing by User:Rudrasharman

This user recently contested additions to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia in the section R1a1. He arbitrarily inserted that it was observed mainly in "high-caste populations" without citing anything, (the Kivisild (2003) article at the end of the paragraph makes no such claim) on the basis that one source used had numerical inaccuracies (though the Bamshad (2001) study which claims that European Y-DNA correlates to caste rank is also (and it is safe to say more) problematic in that its conclusion doesn't correspond to the data (middle castes are more European than upper castes, for example, and there is no regional variation in the subjects chosen)).

This neglects all other sources which state that R1a (M17) is most likely South Asian in origin including those used on the main article for the subject, Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). When I left a comment asking him whether he was an Aryan Invasion Theory proponent based on his attempt to deviate from the (presently mainstream) belief that South Asia is the most likely origin of Haplogroup R1a, as is suggested by sources used on the page linked to above, he did not leave a substantial reply, just a silly ad hominem because I had attempted then retracted an argument against his criticism of Sharma (2009), he then reverted my edit which cited three other valid sources which are all used on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to substantiate a South Asian origin, on the basis that one out of the four sources was questionable without a single comment on the others, and accused me of POV pushing in his edit summary.

He also says that the results presented in Underhill (2009) do not agree with "what I want it to" (perhaps he is hinting that I think R1a has something to do with Indo-European migrations, though I have not made any comment on that on this article or talk page), but it is in fact most compatible (as also stated on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) with sources) with an Indian origin of Haplogroup R1a: "The highest STR diversity of R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes are observed outside Europe, in particular in South Asia ... but given the lack of informative SNP markers the ultimate source area of haplogroup R1a dispersals remains yet to be refined." and "Analysis of associated STR diversity profiles revealed that among the R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA (thousands of years ago), whereas the R1a1a* diversity declines toward Europe where its maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete."

If that's not enough, he has also made persistent personal attacks on users including myself such as that they subscribe to "blog warriors", childish "you did it first" comments, and most recently accusing me of being unable to read or comprehend sources, among other things, crying POV-pushing, even though I have used these sources in the exact same way they are used on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to state the exact same content, (not to mention that out of these citations; , and , none of them is the Sharma (2009) he had complained about), but I have generously chosen not to leave him the {{Uw-npa4im}} that this behavior has unambiguously warranted.

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution