→Page moves: re |
→User:Lugnuts - advice and guidance: resolved |
||
Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
== User:Lugnuts - advice and guidance == |
== User:Lugnuts - advice and guidance == |
||
{{Resolved|OP retired <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
Good afternoon |
Good afternoon |
||
Revision as of 17:18, 1 May 2012
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active discussions
move requests after recent closings
- Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Denes_Lukacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Talk:Denes Lukacs This article just closed March 21 (after heated debate) as not to move. Now an editor has made another move request 4 weeks later, adding it to a long list of other moves where it will get lost in the shuffle. Some of those other move requests are fine but lumping this one in with the others seems to be abusing the move request policy here at wiki. I mean what's to stop me from making other such requests every 3 weeks from now on if I don't like a result? That would seem like system gaming. It seems this particular article should be taken off that list. What is the common etiquette for this so I know what I should and shouldn't do in the future.Fyunck(click) (talk) : , 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The closer of the mentioned "this really needs to be dealt with on a larger scale basis" and closed no consensus despite the fact that there was an overwhelming majority supporting the move. The heated discussion mentioned above came from a few tennisfans wishing to mutilate peoples names as prescribed by their sportbody. Bringing the apparently last remaining deliberatly wrongly spelled tennis BLPs into one RM seems in line with the closers comments of a larger audience. In fact you bringing this here has most likely caused a good few more eyes on the matter. Agathoclea (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's cool that it brings more eyes... but you pulled "this really needs to be dealt with on a larger scale basis" out of context. You'll note the closer also said "I highly recommend that editors refrain from initiating move discussions until such an RFC is completed". That does not mean to lump it together with another multi-move request where the fact it just went through this gets buried. That means to wait until a policy change gets ruled on. We can debate all day about wrongly spelled or English spelled but that was not the purpose of this. The purpose was to get a handle on what is proper etiquette on continual move requests. If we can do it every 4 weeks and that's the norm, then fine. Then I'll know what can be done in the future. It seems very extreme to me. And it also had a move request several months before that if I recall. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, thanks for notifying me. I'm not sure how a RM is "etiquette," but happy to answer.
- I notified you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You forgot to sign it. I assumed it was Agathoclea. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I notified you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ironically it was the above mentioned original Dénes Lukács RM which canvassed my attention. As I would think is clear from my User page my interests are religious history and classical music. I have no interest in tennis (or indeed ice-hockey), but I occasionally watch RM and was concerned about the original Dénes Lukács RM from 3 angles. (1) WP:OWNER behaviour exhibited by User Fyunck (British tennis fan of Polish descent with diacritic removed, according to his stated reasons for deleting diacritics on Polish tennis player Błażej Koniusz) towards User Lajbi (Hungarian tennis fan), both members of Project Tennis. (2) The conflict with WP guidelines such as WP:MOSPN, BLP accuracy, the WP naming convention that states "language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, ..)". (3) preemptive use of redirects on other BLPs showing knowledge of correct spelling enough to create a redirect - which I may be mistaken but seems similar to a recent ice-hockey issue.
- As Agathoclea says, the RM closed with advice for RfC, which was reiterated by Mike Cline and followed at WT:BLP (in my view changing living peoples' name is a BLP issue, although a relatively minor BLP issue compared with more important accuracy concerns). As far as re-including Dénes Lukács on the final tidy up of tennis names. (i) what are we supposed to do, Dénes Lukács has been left to last, but per WP:CONSISTENCY can we leave 1 European tennis player with an anglicized name in among 899,000 BLPs? Why pick on this one? (ii) in any case a move to Dénes Lukács (tennis) is necessitated by having discovered and brought from hu.wp to en.wp Dénes Lukács (colonel) a hero of the 1848 uprising, and the only Dénes Lukács on hu.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Diacritics are not so much a BLP issue because the preference for their real name takes precedent over a non-stage name attribution to a professional standard which effectively bars their name from being properly displayed and carried. If the legal name matches the preferred version by the individual and is upheld with records then the title should have diacritics and the diacritic stripped version should still point back to the disambiguation page as the other two individuals have diacritics in their name. As for going to <name> (field) that should be possible as both the non-diacritic and the diacritic versions should go to the disambiguation page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hostility for someone who kept spamming the Dashboard bashing other people for feedback
- Alligerator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- AbigailAbernathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Alligerator (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Alligerator|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He kept spamming his disgust with the Feedback, I tried to tell him straight out that if he posted on the Feedback Dashboard then we have the choice to reply to him, thus giving him Feedback that he suppositively never wanted. He called me a moron (twice), a "lollipop," and told me I better get checked; insulting my intelligence three times in a row. He called me a "lollipop" after I recommended that he just stop his attacking. --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Flee. 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, AbigailAbernathy, but:
- You told him 'You're posting on the Dashboard, and we are obliged to reply.'. We are not obliged to reply to all feedback.
- He called your answer, not you, 'moronic'. I am not going to judge if that is a personal attack, but you should have been more precise in quoting him.
- You told him 'If you don't want feedback then don't ask for it.. I do not think this is how the Feedback Tool works: it asks the new user to give feedback on their editing experience; it does not ask them if they want to receive feedback (although I assume they would, if they were confused).
I started helping out on the Feedback Dashboard and I know you get all types of users. My main concern is why would you go back to his Talk page all the time, and not simply letting him be? I have found that focusing on promising users works best, but I am curious as to your motivations. Overall, his edits were sufficiently lacking in quality to warrant constructive criticism; which I assume you gave him. Also, I think your edits overall are high quality - but this dispute may have been preventable with a little more tact, and I doubt is further action is necessary. Regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. This a newbie with a single edit -- why prolong an interaction which isn't going well? Nobody Ent 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Newbie", wow, I got chewed out for using "minor editor", is newbie acceptable here, or does that imply less respect? — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given WP:NEWBIES has been a redirect since before my time -- it was created in 2006 -- I've never considered it a pejorative term. Nobody Ent 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Newbie", wow, I got chewed out for using "minor editor", is newbie acceptable here, or does that imply less respect? — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Captain Screebo
This one is comparatively minor, but also quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern.
This AfD exchange was the first time I'd had any communication with Screebo. I've highlighted the objectionable passages in the following:
AfD discussion for Seamus (dog)
- Delete, as stated above by many, per WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopaedic, trivial and a one-time event in the life of the candidate/dog, which is already mentioned in the Romney article. Enough, already. As to Ohio's claim that people misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, it clearly states:
- While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (my emphasis) CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news". – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're deliberately twisting the policy to suit your own ends. It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Personal attack, much, Screebo? If you can't discuss this without imagining you're a mind reader and without making personally derogatory remarks, then you shouldn't be discussing this at all. The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, where, what? You must be paranoid or something (and you definitely come across as supercilious). If you don't understand the use of the English language then that's your problem not mine. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested per wp:npa that Screebo should withdraw the preceding insulting comment in its entirety, along with his initial accusation of bad faith. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, where, what? You must be paranoid or something (and you definitely come across as supercilious). If you don't understand the use of the English language then that's your problem not mine. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Personal attack, much, Screebo? If you can't discuss this without imagining you're a mind reader and without making personally derogatory remarks, then you shouldn't be discussing this at all. The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're deliberately twisting the policy to suit your own ends. It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news". – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
As indicated above, I also posted a request for retraction to Screebo's talk, in which I civilly explained my objection. He has now made close to 100 edits, including two to his talk page, without responding. This is an otherwise productive editor who just needs to be given a clue to prevent him from continuing in the same way in the future. I would, of course, also like to see him strike the offensive comments he made, as evidence that he does finally "get it". Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- My reply from my talk page, quite honestly I didn't reply as I perceived myself to be more "attacked" by being accused of a personal attack, when there was none.
- The reason I didn't respond was because I have better things to do on wiki than get into pointless squabbles. There was no personal attack, and accusing someone of a personal attack when there is none can be considered a personal attack.
- I maintain that selectively quoting parts of a policy to convey the meaning one wishes is either a) intellectually dishonest or b) shows a lack of understanding of the English language.
- Example "Ben & Jerry's manufacture ice-cream and became popular by offering surprising combinations of ice-cream and ingredients. For example, Strawberry Cheesecake, Cookie Dough or Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice-cream."
- The point being (and what we disagree about), the "for example" just gives a selection of what is being mentioned precedently and does not purport to cover all the instances of what the previous sentence is referring to (as you maintain).
- Finally, here is a personal attack from this talk page, to which I did not respond, as I did not wish to escalate it into drama, a kindly talk page stalker put the person in their place and drama for all and sundry was avoided. Maybe they have different standards in Ohio, or maybe I'm thicker skinned, but my initial comment is nowhere near calling you a liar, I could have used the term "cherrypicking" too, would that have been a personal attack too? No, it's my opinion about your behaviour in this particular instance, I am not saying "crook, liar, thief, fag" am I? Let's just drop it shall we? I would like to get on with editing and not get embroiled in ridiculous arguments, all because some people think Romney's dead dog and its one-time voyage on the roof of his car makes for encyclopaedic material. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's neither a need nor a benefit to making the type of comments OS highlighted above -- it doesn't advance your argument regarding the deletion and is inconsistent with the goal of not getting into pointless squabbles. I'd suggest striking them and avoiding similar comments in the future. Nobody Ent 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
- Nobody Ent 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Request posted by a different editor, also concerning Screebo
"Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars. I did call the editor a jerk after he said that to Livitup, but that is indeed being a jerk. No personal attacks is a key policy, but there is no need to be a polite suck up to someone who is this rude. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary being polite (reasonably civil, at least), is the expectation for all editors all the time. (Sucking up definitely not required). Generally speaking, if you retaliate with insults to an editor you feel is contributing inappropriate you complaints will either be ignored or sanctions will be applied to both editors. Nobody Ent 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
AfD discussion for Gemini Wars
- Gemini Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: "Gemini Wars" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have just added a GameSpot UK reference to the article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, very in depth thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep—Third party coverage found: [1], [2], and probably more, if I kept searching... Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Above, I've reproduced the context of the complaint just posted by user SL93. I've never interacted with any of these editors before; I presume SL93 chose to add to this thread after seeing the WQA notification I posted to Screebo's talk.
It's disturbing that Screebo would make comments like this just after receiving a request for retraction from a different editor over insulting comments in a separate matter. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- ( Following comment posted by Captain Screebo: )
- I would like to commend OhioStandard for blowing this out of all proportion, using a scurrilous way over-the-top heading for this section, and also nicely adding background colour and yellow highlighting to make me seem all the more monstrous. As to my comments at the AfD, I have been doing some new page patrolling and also watching some articles (Beez in the Trap, Neymar) which seem to be magnets for fanboy trivia, and people just don't get it even if you try and explain WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL to them. The general response is "yeah it's on the intertubes so it MUST be in Wikipedia".
- On re-reading my comment from last night, and without being aware that this had been added here as further proof that I am just a foul-mouthed jerk (cheers SL93), I struck my comment and added an apology and explanation for my overreaction. [3]
- Finally, as to the tabloid-style heading of this section, no editor is being accused of ejaculation, "you must be paranoid" is just a surprised reaction at what I perceive to be Ohio's overreaction to a fairly banal comment (compared to, say, being called a jerk or an asshole) and I maintain that it's intellectualy dishonest to cherrypick bits of policy, we all know that the news channels cut and splice interviews to make people appear to say things that they didn't, and all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across.
- CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- If "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game" is not an accusation of ejaculation then what is it, exactly? Nobody Ent 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's an adjectival phrase, coming between "fanboy gamer" (two adjectives) and the noun "sites" and is in no way referring to the editors in question. And I did realise it was a bit inappropriate to the debate, as mentioned precedingly, so I immediately struck the comment this morning and apologized. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is not what most readers would believe. It was sarcastic and rude. While it is far from being the worse thing I've ever read, just don't give people a reason to complain. Even if you flag it for deletion it could be seen as a poor response to votes to keep it. Don't antagonize the situation. Personal attacks are serious, even if they are sarcastic. Just refrain from provoking the matter further. I'd also apologize because Wikipedia as complex an nitpicking as it can be is no substitute for good manners and respect of your fellow editors. Always assume good faith... unless you have solid evidence otherwise, i.e. 'Its vandalism time!'.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Break to avoid interrupting previous discussion
@Screebo: Glad you're responding. I don't mind at all that Nobody Ent changed the title you objected to. Sorry you found it disturbing, but please consider that I wouldn't have been able to use that heading if you hadn't said what you said in the first place.
I'm not angry with you, or even much upset about this. I just want you to understand that you can't communicate with others the way you have. But since you've reiterated your statement that I'm either dishonest or don't understand English, have dismissed your "paranoid" remark as unimportant, and since some of your other remarks here ( e.g., "all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across" ) are escalating, I get the impression you're feeling backed into a corner over this, too chafed to be ready to address the problem.
So I'd respectfully suggest before you reply again that you ask some person whose judgement you respect to read wp:notnewspaper, the replacement for the deprecated wp:notnews. Ask whether s/he thinks it's possible that someone who's both truthful and fluent in English could see the examples that follow the phrase "most newsworthy events" as being given there in order to indicate the phrase's scope and intention. If you do, I think you'll be surprised with the result.
I guess that's what troubles me most about this encounter: Your certainty that anyone who differs from your own opinion must be either dishonest or less skilled in comprehension of English than you are. A close second would be the ease with you're personalising conflicts and ridiculing others: Despite striking your "ejaculation" comment, you're still remarking about "fanboy trivia" in this current thread. I don't play computer games, either; they're not at all important to me. But I recognise that they're important to other people, and that ridiculing another editor's interests is just begging for drama: Its disrespectful, unnecessary, and counter-productive. I think you'll see that if you can let your evident irritation subside a little. Oh, re a comment you made on your talk: I've never been to Ohio.
@Nobody Ent: I appreciate your actions and comments to try to help resolve this, and hope you'll stay involved in that way. I doubt Screebo is a bad sort; I suspect he's just reached his limit of seeing new articles whose subjects he holds in disdain. I certainly understand that: I offended someone a while back by suggesting that the great majority of our articles about fashion models, fashion modelling, and suchlike should be deleted. I concluded from the resulting drama that I probably shouldn't be commenting about the subject, or !voting in its AfD's, since I rather strongly disapprove of the industry and the whole corresponding topic area. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I posted these comments on Screebo's talk page "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." from WP:NPA is a personal attack as well. Do you have any evidence that OhioStandard was trying to be intellectually dishonest or has a lack of understanding of the English language?" He ignored it and removed the comments with "Stay off of my talk page and don't start sticking your nose where it's not welcome." Truthfully, I can stick my nose in wherever I want. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- If he's removed it then the that counts as reading it for future reference. He's dismissed your question and I would leave it at that unless this matter escalates and such proof that he has been specifically warned needs to be brought up. While you can post where you want (with some exceptions) the best thing to do is not respond to his edit summary comment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It could have been left at that, but he took me to ANI for crossing out my comment instead of removing it entirely. Very trivial. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've posted at the ANI section about the ongoing discussion here. Please refrain from continuing replying to Captain Screebo at the Gemini AFD. Take a 15-20 minute break and relax. We cannot sort this out in real-time while it bounces all over Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- For future note in the archive the discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin required to get user to stop restoring personal attack which will probably be lost to the archives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've posted at the ANI section about the ongoing discussion here. Please refrain from continuing replying to Captain Screebo at the Gemini AFD. Take a 15-20 minute break and relax. We cannot sort this out in real-time while it bounces all over Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It could have been left at that, but he took me to ANI for crossing out my comment instead of removing it entirely. Very trivial. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- If he's removed it then the that counts as reading it for future reference. He's dismissed your question and I would leave it at that unless this matter escalates and such proof that he has been specifically warned needs to be brought up. While you can post where you want (with some exceptions) the best thing to do is not respond to his edit summary comment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that's sound advice. I doubt it'll fan the flames, though, if I state that it wasn't my intention to make Screebo "seem all the more monstrous" by my color choice above. I wanted to make it easy for readers to understand what was said elsewhere and what was added here, and to be able to quickly identify the passages I was objecting to: People don't have a lot of patience to read threads when they can't see that right away. But I'll gladly substitute less contrasting colors if it'll seem less accusatory or whatever to him. I doubt Screebo's even a little "monstrous", btw, only exasperated. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- ( I've softened the colour used to demarcate the two AfD sections presented above. -- Ohiostandard, 19:24, 29 April 2012 UTC )
- I thought the color was quite helpful. Indeed, your whole presentation was so much easier to folllow than the usual diffs. I don't think Screebo is monstrous, either, but I think he's a bit more than exasperated. I think he enjoys making sarcastic and over-the-top comments and seriously needs to rein them in. His comments often display poor judgment and lack of restraint. Equally important, he can easily make whatever point he wishes without them. My suggestion is he reread his comments several times before clicking Save page to see if they're appropriately worded.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you could be right, of course; neither of us really knows his motives. But I imagine at least half the trouble might be that he's been doing new page patrol too long. Beating back the hordes who constantly try to turn Wikipedia into MySpace would certainly test my patience pretty severely. I imagine that would make even Gandhi sarcastic and suspicious, eventually. Thanks for your remarks about the colour format and presentation, btw; I'm glad to know that was helpful. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, I'm the one Screebo was originally replying to, and I was able to tell the difference between the attack on the sources I was offering, and the personal attack. Neither one was particularly fun for me to read, but I've been called worse. I'd advise Screebo to keep in mind that CIVIL applies all the time... even if you took the personal attack out of his original comments, the attack on the source was decidedly incivil. It's not OK to be incivil at any time, kinda like cussin' in the presence of a lady, even if you're talking about something totally unrelated, you still don't do it. :) Let's all move on, mmmkay? Livit⇑Eh?/What? 01:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, Livit, you're not: I'm the one Screebo was originally replying to, to be strictly correct. I initiated this request over an encounter I'd had with him at a political AfD, after he refused to reply to the concern I raised on his talk page. All the business you're thinking of, about a different AfD for a computer game, arose because SL93 saw my WQA notification and posted his own complaint to the thread I'd started. I figured I could either ask him to get his own thread, or I could include his complaint here. The second option seemed the most economical, so I went with that. I'm glad if my doing so has helped some of you, at least, feel your complaint was addressed by Screebo's strike through in that gaming AfD.
- But the incident with which I initiated this WQA request remains unresolved: Screebo's response to that has only been to kind of double-down: He's reiterated the original insult a few times, dismissed my objection to it as unimportant, excused his own behaviour entirely, and has even come out with one or two new ones in the process.
- I'm not sure if there's any help for it − I do not want him blocked, for example − but I'd also like to see a better outcome than he's been willing to help forge here so far. So I'm going to leave this open for now, and continue to hope for a day or two that he'll change his mind about that. – OhioStandard (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I should have been more specific: I'm the one he was originally replying to in the second example above. I'm more than willing to drop my issue, if Screebo will realize that his particular style of discourse isn't appropriate and agrees to tone it down a bit in general. I make no claims or warranties about your dispute with him. Better? :) Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there's any help for it − I do not want him blocked, for example − but I'd also like to see a better outcome than he's been willing to help forge here so far. So I'm going to leave this open for now, and continue to hope for a day or two that he'll change his mind about that. – OhioStandard (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Livit; thanks for this clarification. And thanks, too, for keeping a cool head throughout the trouble that Screebo's comments at the Gemini game AfD touched off. I assume the other participants in that are all right with putting that to bed, as well? – OhioStandard (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Compromise proposal
How about I remove the unnecessary personal comments both editors made regarding the other from the Afd and everyone strives to stay focused on the content and not each other in the future? Nobody Ent 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that's helpful, Nobody Ent. But whether Screebo's remarks remain doesn't matter to me, intrinsically: I'm not concerned they could injure my reputation; no one's going to take them seriously that way. I'd just been hoping he'd strike them himself to show that he "gets it", that he understands he mustn't personalise differences of opinion or make accusations of bad faith simply because others disagree with his interpretation of policy. But since that insight remains out of reach for the present, your suggestion is probably going to be as good as it gets. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- CS does state on DB's page there that his comments were slightly incivil and suggests dropping the stick and moving on; I think this very good advice. Nobody Ent 19:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd seen that, of course, as you know. My preceding comment was motivated in part by similar behaviour I've seen in wholly unrelated instances over the past few days. So are you saying that he's also willing to accept the suggestion you've made? – OhioStandard (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know, CS hasn't made any edits today. Nobody Ent 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to rush, off-line activities can take people away for considerable amounts of time. While it would be nice, if it is lost to the archives and the matter simply ends, that is also fine. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Right, although if any of the uninvolved edtiors who've commented here wants to use {{archive top}} to close it in a day or three, I'd have no objection to that, either. Probably best to wait until Screebo returns to editing though, in case he wants to add any final statement or any additional comments. Cordial thanks to the several uninvolved editors who helped out here, btw. I greatly appreciate everyone's assistance with this. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- No need to rush, off-line activities can take people away for considerable amounts of time. While it would be nice, if it is lost to the archives and the matter simply ends, that is also fine. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know, CS hasn't made any edits today. Nobody Ent 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd seen that, of course, as you know. My preceding comment was motivated in part by similar behaviour I've seen in wholly unrelated instances over the past few days. So are you saying that he's also willing to accept the suggestion you've made? – OhioStandard (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts - advice and guidance
Good afternoon
I wish to draw the attention of this page to User:Lugnuts and to request advice on how to go forward with him.
In eight years of working here on Wikipedia I have failed to come across a more persistently snide, goading and uncivil editor.
As you may consider from his contributions, his edit summaries recently have been thinly disguised attacks on me ("a user who doesn't know any better" and such) [4].
As you may see from his talk page, and mine, I have directed considerable amount of direct questions to him which have not been answered, or which have been deflected with numerous directions to Wikipedia policy. As you can also see, Lugnuts has attempted to flag up my alleged 'vandalism' in another place [5]. I disagree with his diagnosis, and have found his behaviour, tone, attitude and constant flouting of civility to be increasingly frustrating.
He has consistently ignored my genuine concerns about the work he is carrying out, not least because he is only creating stub articles in a project which requires much more than that to be useful. He refused yesterday to carry out any of the basic, tiny tasks I requested that would help other editors in the project.
He comes across as a "lone agent", without any civility, cooperation, consideration or understanding of the project he is currently failing to help.
I would like to ask for assistance. I have tried to be constructive. I admit that my own tone has not always been neutral, though under the circumstances I believe that the nature of the conversation would lead most grounded people to moments of increased frustration.
I will inform Lugnuts that I have posted this notice here. If someone could please advise as to what can be done to resolve this unfortunate series of events
doktorb wordsdeeds 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied many times to this user, who has a bad case of WP:OWN over "his project". I'm trying to help, but he refuses to use good faith. This is all very WP:POINTY as he's not getting his own way. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that I have not used the phrase "his project" or "my project". I have consistently requested that Lugnuts takes some time to research the project and its requirements, including through direct questions and suggestions, none of which have been answered or heeded. I notice that edit summaries by Lugnuts are becoming increasingly uncivil, unhelpful, and rude, including what I can only assume are direct digs at me, which runs counter to Wikipedia policy on etiquette. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Coda
I have chosen to retire from the project rather than continue with this matter
Dok.
- Well that is your choice. I'm happy to discuss, as I have been doing over the last day or so. Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Page moves
Lugnuts has unilaterally moved a set of pages such as Leeds Council election, 2012, which came within established patterns of articles (as seen in Category:Council elections in West Yorkshire), in a way which could be construed as part of his dispute with Doktorbuk. After each move he edited the redirect, a curious action which has the effect of making it impossible to simply revert the move without going through the WP:RM process. This seems unconstructive behaviour. PamD 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- In the spirit of being bold and following advice on my talkpage that Doktorbuk posted himself, I moved the pages. I had created a Welsh election page with the wrong title and was mearly doing the correct thing as per Doktorbuk's comments. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)