Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Deliciousgrapefruit (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
:My most recent suggestion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=next&oldid=402261621]. Your most recent attacks/assumption of bad faith: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=prev&oldid=402256806][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=next&oldid=402258045] [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
:My most recent suggestion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=next&oldid=402261621]. Your most recent attacks/assumption of bad faith: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=prev&oldid=402256806][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=next&oldid=402258045] [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Stuff like this isn't so bad but it isn't helping: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=prev&oldid=402246202] Consensus is part of what we do here and your response to not achieving it does not need to be to assume that others are intentionally editing in a malicious manner. If you notice, I have been editing the page for awhile and have been happy with its neutrality. It says some scathing things about the guy. If you do not think so you should request that it be checked for neutrality.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
:Stuff like this isn't so bad but it isn't helping: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=prev&oldid=402246202] Consensus is part of what we do here and your response to not achieving it does not need to be to assume that others are intentionally editing in a malicious manner. If you notice, I have been editing the page for awhile and have been happy with its neutrality. It says some scathing things about the guy. If you do not think so you should request that it be checked for neutrality.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
Whatever. You are just using the rules to be a bully editor. Plenty of editors agree with the addition, and you and the others are blocking it for political reasons. [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit|Deliciousgrapefruit]] ([[User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit|talk]]) 13:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Talk:List of Hollows in Bleach]] == |
== [[Talk:List of Hollows in Bleach]] == |
Revision as of 13:48, 14 December 2010
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
Smith Jones
- Smith Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WP:WQA (edit | [[Talk:WP:WQA|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Really I am very tired of schoolboy jokes from editors on the English wikipedia. User:Smith Jones is the latest in a long line [1] to make snide remarks about my surname and wikipedia's name policy. For his information it is a very common surname. I suggest he grows up. Justin talk 20:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to try to give you a serious response, though you're free to take it as you wish. There is no requirement to use one's full name on WP, so using it is your choice, and by doing so, you open yourself up to such imbecillic drivel. Second, there is no proof required to assert that this is in fact your name, and anyone could make up such a name and claim it was real. (I don;t trhink you're lying at all, but again that's not proveable, nor in all honesty should you you try to prove it.) You'd probably save yourself alot of grief by choosing a different one, even though in a perfect world you should not ever be criticized for your real name. (I actually do have some real-word experience in that as a child, so I do genuinely sympathize.) On WP, you do have a choice as to what you're name is, and frankly, for security reasons, I'd recommend that no one ever give out their real name on WP, much less use it as a username. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, using one's real name here is practically begging for trouble, especially if it's a perfectly good name but with an apparent double-entendre... as with the writer, Peter Schmuck. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're going to have to get used to such mild asides. What are we meant to do, block him for sniggering? Fences&Windows 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is being poorly handled with unrelated lectures and personal views about user name selection. It was also poorly investigated.
- Smith Jones should be warned that raising issues that are unrelated to the disputes (let alone the purpose for which this venue exists) is not a helpful way to be contributing. The comment in question may have been a snigger in itself, but it served no purpose except to inflame the dispute that users were attempting to resolve here. The more blunt term for it is trolling. How Smith Jones would have thought it is remotely appropriate to bring this up in the middle of a WQA is quite astonishing.
- Smith Jones has been warned about such trolling on several occasions (August 2009 January 2009 January 2009 August 2008 July 2008 March 2008 March 2008 January 2008 January 2008...and this goes back to his last block in 2006). If he's not getting the message, then yes, maybe a warning is not enough to prevent this pattern of behavior. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can I ask if there is an intention to follow this up? Justin talk 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not much else can be done at this point. If it happens again, an admin might be willing to intervene if they look at the diffs I've raised in this WQA, but most likely it needs to be escalated to RfC/U for it to become a bit more meaningful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can I ask if there is an intention to follow this up? Justin talk 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why are people responding to Wikiquette alerts by blaming the victim and being rude and dismissive ("begging for trouble", etc.)? I would think this would be the one place on Wikipedia where people didn't have to be subjected to such behavior. This is quite surprising and disappointing. Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks but note I've just, well, basically given up. I'm just fed up with this sort of nonsense, so I requested a name change. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Milowent
- Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Colonel Warden (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User talk:Black Kite (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Black Kite|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This comment and this comment come across as extremely uncivil and have made me suspect the user that posted them might be a sockpuppet of Fences and Windows. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Barts, you are so far off the plot it is going to end up biting you in the ass. You are all over the place - mainly the high profile noticeboards - pointing fingers, making accusations, and generally shining an enormous spotlight on yourself. I'm guessing from the typical pattern I've seen so many times before that you have a burning desire to be an admin someday, so here is a heartfelt suggestion: make some positive article contributions. Expand an article with sourced content. Source some BLPs. Read and give feedback on a Good Article nom. Contribute to something other than drama. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the civility, please don't waste anymore of anyone's time by opening a SPI on Milowent/Fences & Windows. pablo 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
MarnetteD
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sissy boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This user is being very bad. I try to make a constructive edit for a real thing which should have an article but currently does not. He keeps reverting it and calling it vandalism. I ask him for a explanation of why and he gives me no reply at all. He then has the cheek to call ME the troll. I really get the feeling here he is just discriminating against me because I chose not to make an account before making a small constructive edit. 94.3.15.232 (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- And he's removed every attempt at communication I made on his talk page...--90.217.99.8 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's not too surprising that you're having difficulties. To begin with you added information to an article in an improper way (correct information, but not added in the right place). After having your edit reverted you left a cryptic message saying "it exists", without signing it or specifying what exists. When MarnetteD removed this message, you left another message that comes across as incoherent shouting, again without signing it. This no doubt caused MarnetteD to write you off as a hopeless loser. You then followed up with three more useless messages. My suggestion is to try leaving a calm message that explains that there is a major Dutch grocery chain called Sissy Boy which is important enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, and ask for advice on how to handle this issue. I think there is a good chance that a calm, courteous, and informative message will lead to a calm and courteous response. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have been polite. Don't make me out to be the villain here. He has acted a complete kukar and not even responded to me, this is very impolite. He saw a ip edit and reverted it as thinking it vandalism without even bothering to do two seconds of research to check that it is obviously a real thing. --90.217.99.8 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly you need to learn a few basics about how Wikipedia works. If, as you say, the company deserves a Wikipedia page, then you need to show that it is notable under the Wikipedia notability guidlines and then you need to provide reliable sources to support what you write about it. If you can satisfy both of these - and the burden of proof lies on you (as the proposer) to do this - then the correct process in this case would not be to simply convert a redirect page into an article as you tried to do, but to convert the redirect page into a disambiguation page with a Wikilink to the existing target of the redirect and one to the new page that you should have already by then created for the store. I suggest you spend a little more time learning how things are done around here instead of throwing tantrums when you don't get your own way. Your own actions in this case are in fact far more deserving of a report to WQA than those of which you complain, which frankly seem like reasonable responses to what looks like yet another series of incorerent posts by an IP vandal. We get them all the time and if you are a serious editor and not a vandal, it behoves you to act like a seriouos editor. If instead you continue to act in a manner indistinguishable from those of a vandal, you can expect to continue to be called a vandal - the choice is yours. Oh, and by the way, have a read of both your posts so far in this discussion and then read assume good faith, it contains some good advice. - Nick Thorne talk 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono
- Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cptono is a bully editor and uncivil to other users. Here is a statement he made on the glenn beck talk page:
Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
And here is a statement he made on my own discussion page:
Go cry yourself to sleep, sweetheart.Cptnono (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Having reviewed his history as an editor, this is part of a clear pattern. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have little use personally for the editor you're complaining about. But this is extremely weak sauce. The advice in the first quote seems reasonable (write a proposed draft/change). The second comment is a bit dickish, but so what? There may indeed be a broader problem with him (or not) but there's no there, here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
These are just the two most recent examples. This is routine behavior for Cptnono, and he has done much worse in the past. He, like many editors, bullies new users, and users who disagree with him. And I would suggest saying something like "Cry yourself to sleep" when someone is raising legitimate points, is bullying. As is his other statement. I shouldn't have to tolerate. Nor should other users. Free exchange of ideas is fine. Free reign for bullies and jerks is not. If this is how things are on wikipedia, I will not contribute any more. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Read this: WP:DIFF. Compile a bunch of them if there there to be dealt with, and the open up an RFC/U (see WP:RFC). I strongly doubt anything will come of this specific complaint. It's just too minor in isolation. You'll have to demonstrate the broader problem, if it's there to see.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't minor. Veteran editors name calling and belittling new users, is a problem and it frankly reflects poorly on wikipedia. I've watched Cptnono as I've read articles for some time. He is a habit of attacking other users and using wikipedia editorial policies as a vessel for bullying. I am not going to take hours out of my day to trace every statement he made and build a case against him. Either the editors here are willing to do their homework to keep wikipedia free of cyberbullies or they aren't. But you can be sure, I will no longer contribute. Just don't feel like being attacked without any moderators stepping in. Especially when I raise a very legitimate concern, and it is clear Cptnono is abusing his veteran status to help advance his own partisan viewpoint in articles. Good day.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I got a warning for it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Your comments were out of line and I am not bullying you. Simply asking you to follow our standards. You still haven't provided a proposed line with a source attached. That is a simple enough request.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
My comments weren't out of line. There are serious problems with that article. I pointed out what they were on the discussion page. I didn't even make any edits tot he actual article, I just wanted to bring problems with it to peoples' attention. Then I supplied some links to prove the point. I have no interest in attaching my name to an article that is obviously the victim of partisan consensus building. I noted that fact and you jumped all over me. I also have been watching you as a wikipedia reader for some time, and this is part of a clear pattern with you. I wish you no ill. But don't bully me and don't call me names. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you do not see how "Am I the only one who suspects this article was crafted mainly by pro-Beck editors. The "disputes" section is an obvious attempt to obfuscate his numerous controversies." and "The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to" inappropriate then we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Those are my honest opinions based on the text in the article and its history. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but should I not express concern about bias in an article? I clearly saw evidence of bias, and you dismissed my concerns with a wave of the hand. You then used the rules as a bludgeon when it appeared I had raised some legitimate issues of bias in the article. There are plenty of good, unbiased articles on wikipedia. The Glenn Beck page does not appear to be one of them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and just to show this isn't isolated. It appears there is another posting on this page regarding Cptnono. The person in question certainly made a snide remark to the editors, but that doesn't warrant this response from Cptnono:
"What does the mean you stupid fuck? Who do you think created that page? I know you are sad that no one agrees with you but shut up already. Cptnono (talk)"
Again, this guy has a history. You can it ignore it, or you can acknowledge it for what it is: bullying. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. I have a history of incivility. I can acknowledge that. But I was not "bullying" you. "1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top." is not mean an anyway. But you just said you "Have no interest in wrangling with users" so maybe you should stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- And I would feel worse but calling someone a fuck was a response (albeit an inappropriate one) to an NPA and my responses to you were based on your continuous accusations of malicious editing. Pot calling kettle black.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You were bullying. The snippet you just posted was not an example of that, what I posted of your statements was however. I saying specific editors were unbiased, I was observing that the page was biased and it looked like it was edited by people favorable to Beck. There is a difference between that, and what you did, which was to target your attack at me specifically. Forget it though, if wikipedia is going to let you continue using the F word against users (whatever your justification), I want no part in wikipedia. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The bullying started when you said "cry yourself to sleep sweetheart" on my talk page and when you said "Blah, blah, blah" in response to points I had raised. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
He is continuing to bully edit on the Glenn Beck Talk Page. I am trying to draft a reasonable entry, and he is just blocking it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not continuing to bully you. Three editors agree that it should not go in and have provided reasoning. I have offered you several suggestions and not been uncivil since I was warned. You on the other hand have repeatedly asserted that editors are not including it due to bias which is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- My most recent suggestion [2]. Your most recent attacks/assumption of bad faith: [3][4] Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Stuff like this isn't so bad but it isn't helping: [5] Consensus is part of what we do here and your response to not achieving it does not need to be to assume that others are intentionally editing in a malicious manner. If you notice, I have been editing the page for awhile and have been happy with its neutrality. It says some scathing things about the guy. If you do not think so you should request that it be checked for neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. You are just using the rules to be a bully editor. Plenty of editors agree with the addition, and you and the others are blocking it for political reasons. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
During a dispute at Talk:List of Hollows in Bleach over whether the article series should use the English translated names as published by the English language license holder or the works author's which came much later, an IP user posted a comment to my talk page about the dispute[6] which I moved to the article talk page where the rest of the discussion was taking place along with adding my resonce.[7] However, this IP user has take exception to the move, stating that I have no right to move their comments[8] and has repeatedly removed the comments from the article's talk page.[9][10] —Farix (t | c) 03:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Profanity directed at editor on editor's talk page
- Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Walter Görlitz (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In this edit I commented Original creators called it a move. You dolts opine it's not. and then added a comment to the talk page to explain how two editors were taking the fight from another article to this one. Essentially the Vancouver Whitecaps FC have played in a second division league and have purchased a franchise in the first division MLS (the only way to enter it). The debate on their club pages is whether the club is moving or it's a completely different team. This debate is about whether the supporters group is decide whether they themselves are moving to the MLS (they created article) or whether to censor the phrase "moving to" from a single heading. While I was writing on the talk page, one of the two opponents to the concept that the club is moving left this message for me and has been hounding me since and is has not taken the opportunity to talk about it on the article page. The editor later stated And also please don;t start making personal attacks if swearing hurts your feelings.]. My reason for stating that they were dolts is that they were not thinking rationally in thinking that the supporters group and club are under the same rule. Again, the "move" phrase was added by the supporters team, not me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bit confused. Are you reporting yourself for calling two other editors "dolts"? ← George talk 12:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not acceptable at all. And I honestly don't know why you are dismissing his concerns. He probably should receive a warning himself for snapping at some editors like that and being uncivil. But the response to his remarks was wholly unjustified and unnacceptable. If people feelt his is okay, it really makes me wonder about what kind of folk are editing this site. We are supposed to be here to work as a community to build a viable reference service online. But it feels like editors are given free reign to attack others in terrible ways. Swearing at users should not be allowed. Period. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, personal attacks and swearing aren't acceptable. I've already warned Cptnono, and they've acknowledged the warning. Walter doesn't need warning - he's read this section and knows now not to make personal attacks, I think. Fences&Windows 23:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda328
- Propaganda328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Damour massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Propaganda328 reverted another editor on the Damour massacre article with an edit summary of "al-akhbar site is temporarily down due to hacking, check up on some politics you ignoramous."[11] Needless to say, the latter part of that statement is a personal attack (even if misspelled), and I'd appreciate if someone could speak to the user. As is too often the case, the personal attack lead to a breakdown in communications, and the article is now on the verge of an edit war. ← George talk 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've given a warning, no response yet. Eyes are needed on Propaganda328, they appear to be a POV editor. Fences&Windows 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yuvrajask
- Yuvrajask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Joseph Vijay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User constantly reverting good faith edits to a format that apparently suits his own personal taste. After reminding him of WP:MOS and requesting him to stop his vandalising edits, he began vandalising my own talk page with profanity and continued to revert edits with inappropriate edit summaries. He seems to have a history on vandalism from seeing his talk page edit history. He has also tried changing my message on his talk page back to a previous one which I had reverted, seemingly in an attempt to frame me; I have reverted it back to the message I originally wrote. Blocking this user from editing will help prevent his destructive actions, arrogance, and attitude he shows towards fellow editors. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- What does POTTA SOOTHU mean? (If anything). Fainites barleyscribs 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not anything nice, as far as my limited searching told me. I've indef blocked, they've been a nothing but a troublemaker their entire short editing career. Fences&Windows 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but that actually means "female ass" transliterally in the Tamil language. Clearly they think Wikipedia is a social networking site. Thanks for the block. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not anything nice, as far as my limited searching told me. I've indef blocked, they've been a nothing but a troublemaker their entire short editing career. Fences&Windows 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Bonewah
- Bonewah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
During a difficult discussion about article content, Bonewah referred to my arguments as "sophistry". As the article confirms, this is a derogatory term, implying that I put forth intentionally false arguments.
I, perhaps understandably, took offense at this insult and insisted that they redact it. Their response was, in my opinion, dismissive and uncooperative.
Based on my understanding of WP:RPA, I replaced "sophistry" with the more neutral "arguments". My edit comment was "redacting uncivil comment: you get to disagree, but not to denigrate". This was reverted, twice.
I would like the comment to be removed and for the editor to be warned about incivility. Dylan Flaherty 08:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:RPA states "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Not that strong, really, to warrant you removing it. BTW: I think you missed the last sentence of the first paragraph, where Bonewah says "...turning our concerns about a source into proof that that source is ok is pure sophistry."[12]. That's twice he mentions "sophistry" : do you want that removed, too? You can't go around refactoring other editors' comments and then reinserting them (esp. when reverted by other editors). You can ask editors to redact or strike things, but if they don't you aren't to take it into your own hands. I don't support the comments as they are probably derogatory, but you should always wait for a redaction (if the editor is willing to do it). Good luck, Dylan :> Doc talk 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- 1) This is a true personal attack, twice. Sophistry is the intentional use of false but plausible arguments. As such, rather than simply disagreeing with my arguments, they are impugning my motives, which violates WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
- 2) If you look at the flow of edits that I linked the diffs to, I believe you'll see that they were asked to redact, and then given the opportunity to do so.
- 3) Yes, I do want all mentions of that insult removed.
- 4) According to WP:RPA, I actually can.
- 5) Since we agree that they are derogatory, can we agree that they should be asked to stop making them? Dylan Flaherty 09:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- As to 2) and 4): you are supposed to wait some reasonable time for them to remove it; and you have been told by several editors not to remove it as you did, so you are possibly misinterpreting what should be removed according to WP:RPA. You also have not notified the editor of this thread, as you are required to... Doc talk 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Also, I would like to amend item 4 to mention WP:TPO, as well as WP:RPA. It explicitly allows removal of personal attacks, as opposed to uncivil comments. Dylan Flaherty 10:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- "But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." That means this[13] was not "exercising caution" after this[14], which led to this[15] warning of a block. Let the editor remove it, not you: it can be "troublesome". Doc talk 10:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. Dylan Flaherty 10:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good - and I didn't mention the other points because I do think the comments are unnecessary and "commenting on contributors and not content", and he should probably consider striking them to show good faith. The history's there, and it's not going to be rev-del'd, so striking it is a fair thing to ask for. Doc talk 10:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. Dylan Flaherty 10:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- "But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." That means this[13] was not "exercising caution" after this[14], which led to this[15] warning of a block. Let the editor remove it, not you: it can be "troublesome". Doc talk 10:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Also, I would like to amend item 4 to mention WP:TPO, as well as WP:RPA. It explicitly allows removal of personal attacks, as opposed to uncivil comments. Dylan Flaherty 10:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this report still active? I ask because User talk:Dylan Flaherty#December 2010 has some clear advice (that using "sophistry" is on the very mild end of uncivil), and that advice seems to have been accepted. I agree that the diff provided above is very mild, and the comment is detailed and provides reasoning in an attempt to justify all its claims. I am not commenting on the issue or whether the message by Bonewah was "correct"; I am just saying that it does not warrant the reaction that it has unfortunately produced. I suggest that anyone wanting to engage at Talk:Sarah Palin should be prepared for robust comments, and if someone claims your argument is sophistry (and provides reasoning), you need to engage with that reasoning. Certainly, if a majority of the responses involved some negative term such as "sophistry", a wikiquette issue may be involved, but it appears (I have only looked at this quickly, so please correct me if I'm wrong), that Talk:Sarah Palin#no mention of her thinking Africa is a country? is a long attempt to introduce text asserting Palin made a blunder, and Talk:Sarah Palin#Africa is an attempt a very short time later to rediscuss the same topic. Robust commentary (with reasoning) is to be expected under those circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- That was one person's opinion. Other people, including myself, felt that it was not at all mild.
- I don't believe your summary of the background is entirely correct, but I'm not going to quibble over it because I think it misses the point, regardless. Yes, that article is high-profile and controversial, so any discussion of this sort is likely to be, as I said earlier, difficult. This is not an excuse for incivility, it is the reason that civility is especially necessary. There is absolutely no justification for violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. If they had simply addressed my arguments and explained their reasons for disagreement, we would not be here now. Presumably, some of us would be having productive discussions about article content. Dylan Flaherty 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Dylan Flaherty
- "Sophistry" being complained about? Amazing considering the complainant has said [16] you're talking about is your bizarre theory that this article should be held hostage to the content of Bill Moyers. If so, that was laughed out of the courtroom. And [17] where he appears to outright accuse me of sock puppetry! Not to mention [18] where he accuses me of drive-by tagging for daring to maintain a POV tag on an article which he cavalierly removed saying each time it is replaced, a new discussion is required (You are in violation of WP:NPOVD with regard to Charles G. Koch. This is a simple procedural rule which you can satisfy by creating a section to discuss any suggestions you might have.) All in all -- I know whom the WQA should be considered to be about at this time. And it is not Bonewah. As to Dylan;s definition of "civility" examine [19] It's very uncivil to remove a warning with "rm trash". Unfortunately, you can't redact an edit comment, but an apology would work. following which I asked him not to post to my talk page, to which he responded with the sock puppet accusation! Collect (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Collect, though that's the least of Dylan's disruptive behavior.
- I've also been falsely accused of drive-by tagging by Dylan, who has edit-warred to remove the tag, though multiple editors have stated the tag is appropriate.
- He's repeatedly harangued me on my talk page despite multiple requests not to violate WP:MULTI.
- He's inconsiderate of editors' time, and insists on that every article has a WP:DEADLINE where other editors must comply with his editing schedule.
- There are also WP:OWN problems on the talk page, where Dylan makes demands of other editors to restate arguments that have already been made, other editors comply with the demands, and then Dylan repeats the demands several times a week. It's awfully tedious that he insists on repetitive meta-conversations in new talk-page sections by falsely announcing a consensus for his position (after ignoring the discussion in the previous debate and the multiple editors who disagree with him) unless editors comply with a demand to start a new thread.
- He personally attacks any editor who takes a position he disagrees with: this frivolous WQA report against Bonewah is entirely consistent with his generally WP:HOUND behavior.
- We could avoid a lot of wikidrama if Dylan was simply barred from political articles: he's already stated his propensity for POV-pushing by insisting that it is appropriate to have a different BLP standard for biographies about left-wing political figures than right-wing political figures, and I've seen no indication that he's willing to edit collaboratively. He seems to be here for WP:BATTLE. THF (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Collect, though that's the least of Dylan's disruptive behavior.
- Thank you so very much for trying to sling as much mud as possible. I find it very educational, if not at all accurate. Dylan Flaherty 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? I suggest that this is outre (accent missing) coming from the person who "slung" an accusation of sock puppetry on my talk page. Kindly avoid slinging mud at me, and it then could not be reported here. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe your intervention here is at all productive, and I'm not even sure it's meant to be. However, taking it at face value (as WP:AGF demands), I would be more than willing to parse out each of your claims and gently refute them. Still, I see no reason to do so here, as that would distract from, you know, the issue at hand. Remember the issue at hand? I do, and it has nothing to do with anything you brought up. Dylan Flaherty 12:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- The issue you raised about Bonewah was, specifically, "civility." Every example I gave of your own behaviour specifically addresses that exact issue. Unless, of course, you feel that accusing a person of being a sock puppetteer on his talk page after berating him for properly removing material from his talk page is now "civil behaviour"? Do you still think I am a sock puppetteer, by the way? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Correct, the issue here is Bonewah's civility. It is not any of the things you are trying to toss into the pot. I am willing to discuss your issues, but not in this forum, where they would serve primarily as a distraction. In fact, I'm going to suggest that you voluntarily hat/hab this entire exchange. Dylan Flaherty 12:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- The issue you raised about Bonewah was, specifically, "civility." Every example I gave of your own behaviour specifically addresses that exact issue. Unless, of course, you feel that accusing a person of being a sock puppetteer on his talk page after berating him for properly removing material from his talk page is now "civil behaviour"? Do you still think I am a sock puppetteer, by the way? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe your intervention here is at all productive, and I'm not even sure it's meant to be. However, taking it at face value (as WP:AGF demands), I would be more than willing to parse out each of your claims and gently refute them. Still, I see no reason to do so here, as that would distract from, you know, the issue at hand. Remember the issue at hand? I do, and it has nothing to do with anything you brought up. Dylan Flaherty 12:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? I suggest that this is outre (accent missing) coming from the person who "slung" an accusation of sock puppetry on my talk page. Kindly avoid slinging mud at me, and it then could not be reported here. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much for trying to sling as much mud as possible. I find it very educational, if not at all accurate. Dylan Flaherty 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, sophistry does not mean willful lying, it mostly means a kind of flawed argument or outlook. It's mildly uncivil, not a helpful thing to say about any editor on a talk page, but it's not a wanton personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to turn this into a battle of the dictionaries, but according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry (emphasis mine):
- subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive
- Likewise, according to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry:
- An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so.
- The art of using deceptive speech or writing.
- Cunning or trickery.
- We could exchange dictionary definitions all day, and you may well be able to find gentler definitions than these, but I think I've done my part to show why it is entirely reasonable for me to have taken this as an insult and a personal attack.
- It might also be plausible that they had one of those gentler definitions in mind, meaning an unintentional fallacy, so no insult was planned. However, when I asked them to redact it, they stood firm. I'm not sure what else I need to say here. Dylan Flaherty 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to me as though anyone was calling you a liar, the word's meaning is, at the most, much more open than being a synonym for that. You might want to think about assuming a bit more good faith with other editors and peacefully, neutrally asking them what they mean if you think you've been slighted by something they've said. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deceptive. Deceive. Deliberate. Deceptive. Trickery. All of these words add up to "liar". Dylan Flaherty 12:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the context of the talk page discussion, it seems to me that Bonewah was remarkably restrained given the considerably more uncivil provocation you provided. THF (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deceptive. Deceive. Deliberate. Deceptive. Trickery. All of these words add up to "liar". Dylan Flaherty 12:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to me as though anyone was calling you a liar, the word's meaning is, at the most, much more open than being a synonym for that. You might want to think about assuming a bit more good faith with other editors and peacefully, neutrally asking them what they mean if you think you've been slighted by something they've said. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
user snowded
Hi, i made this report against user snowded due to what i consider impolite or uncivil communications[1][2],
I have attempted on many occasions (which you will see from the above links) to resolve this issue by talking to User Snowded to attempt to resolve issue in a civil manner but my attempts at this have failed. i have also asked snowded not to post messages on my user talk page on a number of occasions whilst this issue is not resolved and he appeared to not follow my request. My main concern is the general method in which he talks to people on WP in what i would say it would in most cases be in a derogative manner when it comes to an issue of non agreement and use of edit summary's to make guised uncivil remarks [3] there have also been cases of Edit warring on the UAF article page although this is not my main concern and the conduct of the user is more important if this can be resolved
(i may not be availble for reply until later in the day so if i don't reply to discussions i will ASAHP. Thanks for looking into this
Johnsy88 (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just posted a 3rr notification on the users page per proper process. Otherwise if s/he would care to list some specific examples to support the claims I'll happily respond. I suspect this is noise to avoid a block for continued edit warring--Snowded TALK 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I dont not see your reasoning behind the claim of "noise" when the report i made was completed (be it incorrectly placed in the wrong area due to my own inexperience in editing WP) days before your own 3rr claim so i would deduce from what you are saying and your actions that your own 3rr claim is actually noise due to the fact i have raised this issue before hand. As i already stated many times to you snowded my issue is with the manner of your approach when speaking to new and current WP users and the fact that you seem to almost using scoring and non user friendly communication in both your summary's and your discussions when it comes to an issue you are passionate about. I fully understand that everyone gets heated when discussing issue but getting like this serves to help no one and simply causes the catalyst for potential edit warring and basic uncivil and sometimes rude communications with other users. can you not see my point of view?