Revision as of 06:45, 20 July 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

John Halloran (talk · contribs)

• I think of it more as a failure of this board. The behaviour was ongoing and has only stopped as the editor in question has stopped editing. In future I'll take problems to ANI or elsewhere as the board seems to have outlived its usefulness, especially in such an egregious and obvious case as this. Verbal chat 10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I can't agree. Perhaps the comment was a bit hard, but compared to the constant attacks you get in many discussions this is quite civil. In this case, reminding User:John Halloran about WP:NPA should have been enough. The "attack" is mild, prompted by the other users incorrect behavior and there is no repetition. I'm not an admin, but had I been there would have been no action. That said, I do agree that this should not have gone stale, it should have been closed as no action a long time ago. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  Open, considering we are involved in a dispute where you have been very uncivil I'm not surprised by your reasoning. However, calling someone a religious fanatic, trying to ban them from a page, saying they are a vandal, saying they have no knowledge, questioning their qualifications, etc etc are clearly uncivil - per policy. It should have been met with at least a high level warning and probably a block. Calling this "mild" is disingenuous at best. I did nothing to prompt his attacks, except follow guidelines and policy, and my edits have stood review - to characterise them as "incorrect" is itself, incorrect - and note I gave reasons. Verbal chat 10:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

This recent edit by an editor I have been in (civil, on my part) dispute with is going too far in my opinion: "Her 'top university' is probably a Christian school, and to a religious fanatic, the ends justify the means." Although ridiculous, I don't consider the "She" part a personal attack - I also haven't claimed special authority based on qualifications.

It shouldn't take long to review his edits, there haven't been many recently. We first "crossed swords" at the Astrology software article where I noticed it may be a copyvio of another page based on the other page's copyright date. Moonriddengirl dealt with this issue perfectly. John seems to have taken it as an attempt to get the article deleted. When the article was restored I attempted to clean it up, and was met with resistance by John - a major contributor who claims to have written the article along with others who are also, like him, the authors of astrological/horoscope software mentioned in the article. He then made six edits to the article undoing my copyediting with the edit summary "Undid revision xx by Verbal Undo vandalism by biased user" diff. I was polite and explained that this wasn't vandalism and pointed John to the relevant policies, and even apologised that there were so many. In return he stated I shouldn't edit the article ("user Verbal should be disqualified from editing this page","A person who knows nothing about the field should leave the decision of relevance up to those who do know.", etc), said[REDACTED] shouldn't be edited by High school students, says I should be too busy too edit[REDACTED] if I had a PhD (shows what he knows!), and then goes on to further question my credentials and compare me to Essjay.diff He also keeps bringing up typos which seems a bit silly and is due to using a French keyboard at the moment. In all my replies and dealings with John I've been polite and civil. His last two actions were the post I first mention, which I feel goes too far, and an off topic discussion about a love of rules rather than knowledge.

If this continues this editor may need to take a break. Opinions, advice, etc welcome. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You already said on your discussion page that you were going to take a break in order to give birth to a child. John Halloran (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I did say elsewhere I was going to be a dad soon. I specifically haven't complained about the "She", that's not a problem (unless you do it again now you know). Would you care to address the actual concerns, such as the clear implication that I am a religious fanatic? I've asked you on the talk page to remove that comment. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I belive that the user may need mentoring. He seems to have some knowledge of the field, yet seems to be unable to crasp that that dose not give him the right to ignore rules about RS or OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree: a mentor would probably be a good option here to help the user contribute constructively. As for the "religious fanatic" comment, a polite warning to assume good faith and remember to maintain civility when participating in discussions wouldn't go amiss. GiftigerWunsch 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Still waiting for input. If my description was too long I will refactor. Basically, "religious fanatic" is going too far. Verbal chat 08:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Does no one have an opinion on this at all? Verbal chat 11:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Did you leave the user a polite message to remember to maintain civility before posting this here? I looked on their talk page but didn't see such a comment. This should always be the first action you take; don't forget that WP:WQA is here to render advice and opinions on civility issues and/or to refer the matters to other noticeboards. You should try to deal with the matter yourself before advice becomes necessary, and in this case a polite comment about maintaining civility or request to retract the statement that you are a "religious" fanatic would have sufficed unless the user refused to address your concerns civilly. GiftigerWunsch 12:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Yes I did, and I was polite to them on the article talk page and asked them to calm down. Would you actually like to read and respond to the problematic behaviour, or do you think it is fine? Verbal chat 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you should have discussed the problem with the user and/or issued a level 1 npa warning and let that be that. WP:WQA is here to help resolve issues of incivility and exists only to render advice and/or refer the issue to a relevant noticeboard. Incivility is inevitably going to happen during the consensus-building process, and while I agree that calling someone a "religious fanatic" is a personal attack, IMO it's a pretty minor one and could have been dealt with via polite discussion and/or npa template until it became a more serious problem. GiftigerWunsch 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this board is certainly useful. Thanks for nothing. The only advice is slap a template on them. Yes sir, that would have deescalated the problem. Sorry Giftiger, as I know your advice is well meant, but it is wrong and would have made the situation worse in this case. There is no point in my talking to them, as they have already said I should be banned and that I am a religious fanatic that should be ignored and talking to them makes it worse. Verbal chat 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you find that talking with the user isn't going to help, then I'd say just avoid them. While calling someone a "religious fanatic" isn't very pleasant, it's not really worthy of much more than a warning about civility. Just avoid them where possible, and if they make any particularly malicious remarks they could be taken to WP:AN/I at a later date. GiftigerWunsch 21:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic

Ummm, Verbal... if this is an "accusation of bad faith" - what exactly is this? I wouldn't "request opinions" on open threads if you're not prepared for responses that might not be to your liking. Doc9871 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Doc9871, what's the relevance to this thread? Verbal, please don't collapse other people's comments since you have pretty clear motives for wanting to removing Doc's comments. It's not exactly relevant to the thread, but collapsing it should be at the discretion of an uninvolved party. GiftigerWunsch 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My clear motive is that it is off topic and rude. Verbal chat 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal is on a personal vendetta here. Experienced users (or at least users trying to throw their weight around policing articles) going after inexperienced users over petty breaches of wikiquette is a rather pathetic spectacle in this editor's opinion. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. Being called a "religious fanatic" (despite never mentioning religion!) when I have been polite and helpful is clearly a problem. You put this comment in the right section at least. Verbal chat 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that I have been uncivil is incorrect. If you think I have, please start a WQA providing diffs of this supposed incivility. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Mass killings/communist regimes where I point it out and ask you not to do so in future. This thread is closed. See WP:DR if you want to take it further. Verbal chat 12:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this noticeboard is a method of WP:DR. Everyone has the right to answer to claims made about them. Discussion is encouraged, not "closed" by archiving. Please see Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/Volunteer instructions for a list of appropriate templates to use in closing reports. Pages are archived automatically. Swarm 07:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

I am loathe to bring a matter here; I almost never do. However, Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) is an editor who's found his way to the block of articles I normally edit and there has been some quite intense friction. He's fairly consistently edit warred and subsequently made on talk pages numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, hasn't heeded my requests to cease such behaviour, and seems like he'll be active on the pages I'm at for some time. Hence, I'd like some assistance - either another voice or other voices he might listen to, some guidance, and/or general advice - in getting the atmosphere more collegial, for everyone.

A sample of what I'm talking about follows:

• Questioning my grasp of English:
  • "English comprehension as well?"
  • "Don't place tags until you learn the Queen's English"
  • "English much?"
• Accusations of bad faith:
  • "you have shown bad faith in this date format thing in the past"
  • "You came off looking badly in both cases... I'm saying that you don't operate in good faith. I have no need to control date formats: that seems to be your domain considering your history.... Seeing as how little you respect consensus, I doubt that discussing this will matter."
  • "You edited in bad faith..."
  • "In total, your argument... is a lie based upon your lack of good faith editing and your blatant disregard for the rules you are clinging to." With the added edit summary, "red herring season."
  • "Reverted 2 edits by Miesianiacal identified as vandalism to last revision by Walter Görlitz" (A false accusation)
  • "Reverted 2 edits by Miesianiacal identified as vandalism to last revision by Walter Görlitz" (A false accusation)
  • "I would prefer User talk:Miesianiacal to simply admit to making the changes and revert them..." (I hadn't made all the changes)
  • "The distinguishing "that country's" was edit-wared by User:Miesianiacal"(I reverted once)
  • "Feel free to continue to obfuscate."
  • "I'll wait for Miesianiacal to tell me that he's ignoring consensus before I escalate."
  • "How about you stop showing WP:Ownership?" (After I'd agreed to a third opinion I'd sought)
  • "That was gracious losing. You thought you were right and made an appeal hoping to be vindicated. When it turns out that you were wrong you actually argued with those called to help you. YOu finally gave in when you realized you could not persuade them that your previous wording wasn't ideal." (About my seeking of dispute resolution and subsequent (and immediate) acceptance of the compromise)
• A bit of both:
  • "User talk:Miesianiacal is mistaken at best or at worst lying or incapable of reading."
• Policing my talk page comments:
  • "Removing prejudice and incorrect commentary"
  • "Inserting your opinion on a talk page to bias the discussion with false information is not a benefit. Don't do it again. I decided not to warn you and merely reverted your attempt to influence editors with your typical misrepresentation. I will be forced to warn you the same way you warned me."
• General rudeness:
  • "I think 'that country's confederation' is the stupid wording..."
  • "Nice hyperbole."
  • "I wasn't being rude, you are being arrogant though"
  • "Sorry if it offends you to try to make sense."
  • "Miesianiacal has a Messiah complex"
  • "You really are insipid."

Some of the more offensive comments left at my talk page I deleted, but for context and more detail, the following discussions generally illustrate the interactions between Walter Görlitz and myself:

• Talk:Victoria Day#For the record
• Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format
• Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Seeking consensus to remove .3Csmall.3E tags around .3Cref.3E
• Talk:David Lloyd Johnston#Date format
• Talk:Michaëlle Jean#Confederation of...?
• User talk:Miesianiacal#Victoria Day x2
• User talk:Miesianiacal#Counting and WP:3RR
• User talk:Miesianiacal#GG date formats

It may also be pertinent to check the history of his talk page; he's had some civility warnings in the past (eg. ), but he deleted them.

I understand that I am not free of blame for some bad attitude myself, here; in compiling this report, I've come to notice my tendency to be a little too sensitive and beget snippiness with more snippiness. I will try harder to control that. However, it's still my impression that the scales of misbehaviour are tipped towards WG's side (no bias, of course! ;) ). Other input - on WG, myself, or both together - would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to argue against this record nor have I read it. User: Miesianiacal's ability to record every offence made against him is well recognized. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you two need a divorce. -- œ 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And this forum may be the wrong place for that. Jusdafax 11:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the desired result is: it's not really specified. A possible interaction ban? This is a detailed report, and needs further clarification... Doc9871 (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of the instructions at the head of this page, I was under the impression that this forum didn't offer much in the way of action; it was more just a place to analyse situations and explore some options. I don't necessarily want to see WG pushed off; he can be productive and sometimes civil. I guess I'd first just like a confirmation that his behaviour has indeed been contrary to Misplaced Pages's civility guidelines and, if so, have him hear more voices reminding him to keep it respectful and see what results from that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I will comment. The "civility warning" was more of a comment made by an editor who took my comment to a third editor, on that third editor's talk page, in the wrong light. The third editor on whose talk page I posted a comment had restored a section to an article with a comment that made it obvious that he missed a discussion on the talk page about removing some content. He was also in an edit war earlier in the day and I was trying to inquire if he was having a bad day. After receiving the "warning" I immediately went back to the third editor and apologized. He then came back and said that he took not offence. And contrary to M's accusation that I deleted "them" (a single warning treated as a plural?) is incorrect as the full discussion is on my talk page and has been there since the issue ended five days ago. I may have received earlier notices or comments and they're in my archives, although I may have removed them after responding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So how do you foresee ending this matter? -- œ 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are at an impasse here. The original poster may wish to take the substantial work in notating these extensive complaints to WP:ANI. In an ideal world the parties would agree to disagree and carry on building an encyclopedia, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Suggest closure as stale and unresolved without some movement in the next day or so. Jusdafax 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I "second" closing it as "stale". As stale as three-day old bread - I asked the good reporter to respond: to no avail. This thread is dead, baby... Doc9871 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree and tagging as such. Discussion can be reopened or restarted at any time, if needed. Swarm 07:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I merely wasn't sure what to do; WG wasn't being terribly incivil for a bit there and it seemed as though going to ANI was just a touch too drastic for the circumstances. However, it appears that he's back to the bullying and tendentiousness accusations of bad faith and again, albeit more subtle. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsure why this was reopened. Please, again, what are the actual desired results of the filing of this report? A block of Walter Görlitz for incivility? Topic ban? Not a huge fan of rollback being used for this edit in particular - but I don't think the priv should be removed either. I'm not trying to make light of this, and I have respect for both of you. How do you suggest that this matter be resolved? Several editors agree this should be closed as "stale": as the filer, it would be best to elaborate before it is closed again. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all you say is fair enough. So, to be clear, what I desired in bringing this matter here was:

a) a confirmation from the community that the above is indeed illustrative of an individual's uncivil behaviour, and

b) to have other editors strongly suggest to WG that he cease with said uncivil and aggravating behaviour.

If things didn't change after that, then I'd consider taking it to ANI. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, and I hope WG takes note and learns from this. I for one deplore his style, which you have meticulously documented. Agree that if WG can't learn the value and importance of civility in editing, it becomes a matter of concern for the wider community via ANI. I think we all want this to end on a positive note, however. Jusdafax 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems he's still at it: after saying he wanted to wait for consensus at an RfC before making a change to an article related to that discussion, he started reverting that very article, using another anon IP's reverts as an excuse before trying to pin the blame on me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Behavious duly noted and on record. b) From reading this thread I think he's getting the point well enough, no need for further admonishment. Unless, if the situation escalates further from this point, I'd endorse a User/RfC, as that would probably be the resulting suggestion if this went to ANI. Can we mark this resolved for now or have there been any other developments? -- œ 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what's been said here is indicative of any change in WG's behaviour; besides what I mentioned earlier today, we still have him mocking my words and comments like "if only I could convince you to stop being so self-righteous in your actions." In fact, from his near complete lack of participation, I don't believe he's at all interested in this thread. Perhaps on those grounds alone it's reached the end of its useful life. An RfC/User is such a messy affair, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(o/d) I've observed both WG and Mes in action previously and have been less than impressed by both their styles of discourse. Sampling about 1/3 - 1/2 the provided links, I can find several examples of WG crossing the line ("you really are insipid" and the retaliatory warning, for two) and I can also see Mes repeating patterns I recall from the past (dogged "discussion" and co-personalization of disputes). So it's not a clean picture, but what I'm seeing here is WG being a tad more in the wrong than Mes.

If I was currently more active (as an admin or editor), I would warn/counsel WG about over-personalizing disputes (again I think) and admonish him that if you are going to place a warning (or "don't make me post this warning") on a user talk page, you better be prepared to escalate it if necessary - or engage in discussion to resolve your interpersonal problem, evidence of which I cannot find. I'd also mention changing another user's project-space talk page post, which you bloody well should note on that talk page if you are going to do it at all.

I couldn't act in an admin capacity with Mes on this, since I've worked on sufficiently close content issues with them, but if I could, I would be warning about dredging up every single thing from the past when you interact with another editor. Sometimes people fundamentally disagree, sometimes they just don't get along. Curb your tendency to enter the "battleground" and do keep in mind that you occasionally may actually be wrong. Myself, I consider being frequently wrong as one of the areas where I have the most experience. :)

I'd recommend closing this as suggested above. Behaviour noted, next step is a user RFC if desired. Going to AN/I is unlikely to yield anything more than my cautions above, given the extended timeframe of the supplied links. If it did go to AN/I, an interaction ban could happen - but then both parties will have to deal with that messiness of who edits what. Both editors would be better off to stop worrying about each other's characterization of themselves and just focus on finding a good compromise on the content disputes. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Franamax - very well said! Jusdafax 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that last sentence is the key towards a favorable outcome. -- œ 04:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Eva Grossjean

Eva Grossjean (talk · contribs) Continued incivility past final warning. See Revision history of Catalonia for most of the belittling edit summaries, although some anti-IP biases (and the worst of the insults) are on the user's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that doing the {{user|Username template thingy}} in the thread title messes with some people's browsers, so I fixed it for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs)

I think the "final warning" was a bit premature, but this new editor does need to be stopped from being abusive towards other editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving a handwritten note basically explaining that civility, not English, is a standard of "fitness" around here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks perfect, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to report that Eva Grossjean has returned to act inappropriately in the discussion page of Catalonia, as can be seen in the link (), maintaining an attitude arrogant and condescending and insulting me several times. Arkarull (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a uw-npa after placing an attempt to uw-delete and uw-cite (trying to go easy, I could have done the uw-delete and the uw-cite separately). It's looking like an SPA, and while I don't necessarily think that an editor being narrowly focused on a single subject is a bad thing, if she continues to ignore basic guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:CITE (but especially WP:CIVIL), I'll take this over to ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thaks Ian for your time. Even though Eva did not retract of her offenses and persists in insulting. But I will not go more into her game, perhaps the "mental laziness" that causes me to be Spanish prevents me of defend my honor. Who knows. In any case I do not know what a person as she can contribute to Misplaced Pages. --Arkarull (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eva Grossjean is continuing with her incivility and bigotry (see her Talk page), and will not stop her personal attacks on the Spanish people and on anyone she thinks is not in perfect command of English (while, ironically, making a number of errors herself). She has even reverted Jimbo and accused him of vandalism, here, and she is edit-warring on Catalonia. I really don't think she's going to listen or to stop, and is certainly not going to bring a civil and NPOV approach to Misplaced Pages. I think some action is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a good example of a situation that needs to be moved over to the WP:ANI page. Unless I'm mistaken there really isn't much we can can do here, as the situation appears to be beyond the functions of this modest 'first-stage' forum. Jusdafax 13:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  OK, makes sense - I'll start an ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Autgeek and Tmorten

I have tried severals times to communicate with Autgeek and Tmorten in a civil manner. Laying out decent arguments against an article and they have called my messages Vandalism.

I used proper language and I was polite. This is bullying.[REDACTED] seems to be run by thugs. I am glad it is not an acceptable source anywhere in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.3.35 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your talk. —I-20the highway 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue with AutoGeek is resolved... for now. —I-20the highway 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive

Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) seems to be in direct violation of WP:NPA. Take a look at the last few edits he's made to my talk page since June:

• Telling me not to "destroy" a GA nomination
• Calling me "monkey boy", not once but twice

This hatred of me seems to stem from the fact that I passed Eddie Rabbitt, on which he worked extensively, as a GA and then listed it at GAR because I had (valid) second thoughts on the article's quality. I also chainsawed Love & Gravity, on which he added a great deal of OR (most of which he later reverted, but I since re-removed).

Also, he created an article on a non-notable Dan Seals album which was listed at AFD and later restored as a redirect. The extensive discussion over lack of notability apparently went over his head, as he as asked that the redirect be removed so he can rebuild the article, despite having its lack of notability plainly spelled out.

This user is a very problematic one and a constant thorn in my side due to his confrontational, insulting nature. I've repeatedly asked why he continues to insult me, and he just shrugs it off. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that they're holding some type of a grudge over your actions over Eddie Rabbitt, and they're simply trying to provoke you. The confrontational personal attacks on your talk page clearly show a blatant disregard for NPA.

This, apparently, isn't an isolated incident, however. Their past responses don't exactly leave me hopeful that they will be willing to discuss and resolve this, however this behavior can't be allowed to continue forever. Swarm 06:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly retributive and an unambiguous violation of NPA and CIVIL. I would suggest that, if the user does not make a good faith effort to engage here, you take this to AN/I and seek a block. Eusebeus (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasty Deletions:

I think this person deletes too speedily: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:NawlinWiki

Nantucketnoon (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. See here. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with NawlinWiki's deletions, but I see a lot wrong with Nantucketnoon's abusive approach to discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When I participated more in speedy'ing inappropriate new pages, I remember often seeing NawlinWiki's name following me around, cleaning up the pages I tagged. From the remark about waiting for one of the band's members to help with the article, I'm guessing the article didn't have any sources demonstrating notability. If so, there was nothing wrong with the deletion, Misplaced Pages is based on verifiability, not truth. If you do have sources, go on ahead, recreate the article, and use the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looking at Nantucketnoon's talk page, the entire contents of the page where "A seminal band out of Boston." And he's making personal attacks on NawlinWiki ( ). Looks like WP:BOOMERANG to me, I'm almost tempted to change the thread title.

Nantucketnoon, it's not NawlinWiki's fault you didn't create an article that met the guidelines. You need to quit throwing a hissy fit, and either get over it like an adult or read up on the music guidelines and come up with an article that meets those standards. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Please point me to these "lesser bands" so I can tag those for deletion. If you keep throwing a tantrum, and I'm going to change the title of this thread. NawlinWiki is not "asserting his will", you are not assuming good faith in calling him authoritarian for following guidelines that keep Misplaced Pages from turning into a directory for garage bands noone is going to care about. If all you had to say was "A seminal band out of Boston," and didn't have sources to demonstrate notability, that's kinda an indication that there aren't enough people out there that care for the band to deserve an article, regardless of how old the band is. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nantucketnoon's response was less than helpful. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this what Misplaced Pages is coming to? Approaching me first & not being condescending would accomplish more, & then, having one's friends starting to follow me & harass me. Nantucketnoon (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to harass you; Ian.thomson has already made it clear on your talk page what you are doing, and I suggest you take some time, relax a bit, and try not to take everything personally and seriously as you have been doing. Sometimes taking a step back and putting things into perspective may help things out.

Being combative does not help anything, and you have users out there who are trying to help you. In order for others to help you, you need to help them by communicating in a calm, rational manner. Just doing that can go a long way. –MuZemike 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution