From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page. Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Article talk pages Editor assistance Third opinion Requests for comment Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Requests for arbitration Arbitration clarifications Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions Mentorship

Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate. That's usually the best solution for everyone involved. If problems continue, then there are further options as described in this dispute resolution process link and the info-box to the right. For more information, click any of those links, or start with this article: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

IMPORTANT: Read the instructions before posting your alert. Review the section titled Procedure for this page, immediately following the table of contents below.

Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out, and in particular if you have been helped by this page, please return the favor by offering your advice on other incident reports. That's not a requirement for posting your report, but it's a good idea, and your help would be much appreciated. Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures. Wikiquette in a way is the basis of what allows the community to work smoothly together, so those are valuable skills to develop for those who like to edit Wikipedia. Thanks!

[edit] Are you in the right place?

• To report obvious vandalism please use administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Violations of the three revert rule should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
• If you feel an article needs protecting against rampant vandalism or a persistent edit war, please use requests for page protection.
• If you believe that one or more editors are sock puppets, please use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and helpful advice is at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors
• For all other incidents that may require administrator intervention, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, an alternative to posting to this page is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor, you can use Wikipedia:Editor assistance.

[edit] Procedure for this page

[edit] Instructions for users posting alerts

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers here are volunteers. It may take some time to receive a response. If the problem is continuing and you have not received any results from your posting here, return to this page and post an update to your original statement of the problem.

If you have not received help and the problem becomes urgent or is escalating, refer to the list above and post your report to one of the Administrator Notice boards instead. In that case, please edit your post on this page to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

• Post your alert to the bottom of the page — add a new sub-heading with a short description of the issue (click here to start a new section).
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page and instead supply a simple direct explanation of the problem, along with the user-ids of the Users involved and a link or two to the page where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diff's that show the problem. (A guide to creating diff's is here).
• Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could cause the problem to escalate.
• Sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were—editors responding to posts here will review the discussions where they are occuring. They may post notes there, however in situations that involve mulitple pages, reviewing editors will post their comments here, so watch this page and refer back to your entry when you notice that a comment has been posted.

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

[edit] Instructions for editors responding to alerts

All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on this page. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated.

To help with this page, place it on your watchlist so you can see when new alerts are posted. Or you quickly scan the page for items here that are either marked with the WQA "Work in progress" message-box or have no status indicator at all. If an alert does not have any kind of response yet, it is open and needs attention.

• Review open items and when you find one that you feel you can help with, visit the relevant pages and observe the situation. When you are ready, enter your helpful comments and strive to improve the situation, at the disputed page if appropriate, or on this page if that seems better.
• Enter a note on this page in the relevant section to indicate that you have joined the process. Add the {{WQA in progress}} template (as displayed above) to the top of the report item's sub-section.
• If there is no action needed, or after action has produced results, enter a note on this page to describe the results, including constructive comments on about any Wikiquette breaches you may have seen.
• When the issue is ready to be closed, follow the steps below.

Closing the reports:

• If you believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties, close the item by entering the {{resolved}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

• If on the other hand, after you have done your best you find that the problems are continuing and you feel there is nothing further that you can do, then consider what the best next step for the parties would be. State your suggestions on the relevant talk page, and also in a comment here, what dispute resolution process you recommend, and include a link for them to follow. To close the item here, enter the {{stuck}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

• For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {{stale}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

• For items that should not have been posted to WQA at all -- blatant vandalism, accusations of sock puppetry, a request for adminship, etc., please refer the original poster to the proper forum, and place the {{NWQA}} template under the section heading.

The five templates may optionally include your signature and additional summary comments by including them after a pipe, for example, {{resolved|User has been reminded about [[WP:NPA]] ~~~~}}, or {{stuck|Referred to [[WP:ANI]].}} This automatically formats the included text as small text displayed next to the template. For detailed instructions on using the templates, click any of the template name links above. Please note that using a timestamped signature with one of these templates will delay the automatic bot archival of that alert to 14 days from when you sign the template.

[edit] Archiving alerts

Reports are considered closed and automatically archived by bot (whether tagged or not using any of the templates described above) one week after the last timestamped signature in the discussion. Reports marked resolved, stuck, or NWQA (as above) may be manually archived sooner than this. Links to the archive pages can be found in the Archive Box next to the Table of Contents above.

[edit] Active alerts

[edit] User:Alientraveller

As I see it, there was no need for user Alientraveller (talk · contribs) to use sarcasm in his removal of my RFC on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers_2:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen&action=history.

I am an inexperienced editor who did not know what an Edit Conflict is and still does not, because no explanation was given. Nevertheless, I was not impolite in my creation of the RFC (which I still think is valid and not appropriate for a single editor to remove - comments welcome) and do not think the use of sarcasm was justified.

I would appreciate any thoughts and apologise if this is not the correct thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT:

Another editor restored (diff) the RfC section. — Athaenara ✉ 10:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's what the editor was making the comment about - fact is, Alientraveller should not be sarcasticly removing posts - his conduct is at stake.

OH! And, he's now resorted to calling another Editor "silly" on the same page - is this appropriate behaviour??? What can be done to stop him??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of this discussion and advised him that, while not a gross civility violation, this edit summary was probably not a good idea. As far as the "silly" comment, I don't feel like it crossed the line.

If you have future complaints about this editor's behavior, please provide diffs of the comments in question (diffs are described at the top of this page) to make it easier to see what is being discussed.

And no worries, you came to the right place :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a gross civility so didn't require too much 'pressure'. But I'm thankful for you contacting the editor in question. I consider the matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User 67.68.33.180 (Personal Attack in AfD Discussion)

In the AfD for Koboi labs, and anon IP (67.68.33.180) posted a most distasteful comment, which is a clear ad-hominem attack that I feel clearly constitutes bigotry and is clearly unacceptable under the personal attacks policy as it as an epithet against a person with a history of disabilities. The actual diff is here. I strongly suspect (without proof) this is the article's creator unhappy about the AfD. I am not asking for action to be taken against the user, as I have already issued a level two warning against the IP, and I am aware this would be a silly request for checkuser. I am simply requesting the community's approval to remove the text added in that diff from the AfD discussion. I am loathe to modify the comments of another in an AfD, no matter how invective or bigoted, and am doubly so since they were directed against me. I find WP:RPA of no guidance here, and feel that Process is important. I am therefore not comfortable unilaterally removing the invective from an active AfD discussion. Thus, before I just go and remove the comment, I am asking the community's leave to do so here. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

done. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pixelface

I believe User:Pixelface's current behavior (starting approximately on June 6) on the RFC for determining whether the current version of Notability (fiction) has global consensus is out of line for civility for behavior expected of editors, particularly in an area of heated concern.

I will admin the topic is a very sore one, as it hits right at the center of the emotional inclusionists/deletionists issue. I am fully aware of Pixelface's views and respect those views for what they are, and I can understand the frustration behind seeing what you strongly believe in be overwhelmed by others.

However, the method by which Pixelface is approach this debate seems like it's trying to seem who can shout the loudest to make their point overly clear. There's no specific diff that exemplifies this behavior, though telling people "they're wrong", bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong, assuming bad faith, repeating the same points over and over and even trying to shut down the consensus process before it can begin. There's at least 30 other editors at that page and over 200 edits since the 6th, and no one else seems to be taking the same aggressive defensive stance that Pixelface is, and the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion.

If this is not considered uncivil behavior, then I apologize to Pixelface for the inconvenience and will drop this matter. --MASEM 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That editor *was* wrong. That editor said the notability guidelines can only be more strict than WP:N but not less strict. Clearly a false statement. The question about games *did* apply to that thread. Saying you ignored all the discussion on WT:NOT between my first removal of PLOT and my second removal of PLOT is not assuming bad faith; your claim that discussion had not taken place between those removals, however, was. And your refusal to address specific articles is why I keep bringing them up. And I didn't try to shut down anything. Are you saying you started the RFC because earlier I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag? I'm not the only person who has mentioned the {{rejected}} tag. Speaking of aggressive stances, how many people in the Oppose section[1] have you been arguing with? Let's see, you're the first responder to the first 6 opposers, you eventually made a comment under the 7th opposer (me), you were the first responder to opposers 9,10,11,and 12; and you replied to opposer 13, 16, and 20. So you may want to look at your own behavior regarding "shouting the loudest" and aggressive stances.

And if you're so concerned about the civility of the discussion, where are your Wikiquette alerts for TTN and David Fuchs? Where is your Wikiquette alert for the editor who said "gutter trash"[2]? Here[3] TTN says "I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell." And here[4] David Fuchs says "Congrats. You infuriate me to no living end. I can parrot quotes from people all day long too. That doesn't help jack-shit. Disk space is not the issue here, stop pulling a straw-man." and "If I had a nickel for every time someone invoked WP:IAR... oh wait, since I can ignore rules, I'll delete your userpage, talk page, block you indefinitely, and trash every article you've ever worked on. Will that make you happy?" Considering that nearly every opposer is getting a wall of people arguing with them, and there is practically no space between supporters, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal aims to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work and has the support of an editor currently under editing restrictions regarding wiping out that work, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the suppport of multiple users whose names have shown up in the past at WQA, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the support of multiple people who have referred to other editor's good faith edits as "vandalism", I think I've been pretty civil. As far as I know, nobody but you has made a comment at WT:FICT saying they think I've been uncivil, but I have seen several other editors told to watch their civility. I'll be happy to stop commenting at WT:FICT if you think my absence will improve the atmosphere. From the looks of it, your proposal doesn't need opposition from me anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the fact you or I are replying to every message - it's the tone, as pretty much your comment shows, is where the problem is. It is confrontational and almost requires an equally confrontational response, which if progresses leads to edit wars, blocks, or worse. I am not asking you to leave the FICT, NOT, or any other discussion, nor expecting that as a result from here, but I am asking you to participate in resolving the issue, not inflaming it. Yes, there are others that have made a single reply or two in the FICT discussion that is heated, but not in nearly every reply they've made has been bordering on this same level of confrontational and accusational language that you have made; if any other editor on that page made as many such confrontational statement, I would have included them here too. --MASEM 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, you replying to nearly every person who opposes your proposal looks confrontational. To me, it appears like you felt threatened when I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag, and you reacted by starting an RFC on FICT — which you seem to have focused more time on than any other editor. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Do you think the RFC has done anything to resolve the issue? It looks to me like the same old division. I can think of a possible way that might help resolve the issue. Ask people a simple question. Ask them to fill in the blank:

• A fictional literary character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional television character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional comic book/graphic novel character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional film character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional videogame character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional vehicle can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional item can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional location can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional concept can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction television episode can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction film can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction book can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A videogame with a a significant plot can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A comic book/manga title can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A comic strip can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A webcomic can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A toy with a significant backstory can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A storyline can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• Fictional topics that should probably not have separate articles include _____
• Fictional topics that are generally suited better to lists and not separate articles include _____
• When someone searches for a fictional topic, the search term should generally be a redirect when _____
• Fictional topics that should generally never have separate articles include _____

And don't just ask involved parties of E&C1 and E&C2. I'm sure there are millions of editors that aren't even aware the discussion at WT:FICT is taking place. You're trying to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of articles from one talk page, so don't expect smooth sailing. As far as I know, nobody else but you has said at WT:FICT I have being uncivil, so you may want to consider that when you think about my tone. I don't think I've inflamed the situation at WT:FICT. But if you think so, I'll go ahead and not comment at FICT for a week and you can see if the atmosphere improves. I would even be happy to not comment there anymore until the RFC ends in July. I think you'll find that maybe I'm not the problem. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pixelface here. I have seen far more blantant incivility and tendentious editing from some on the other side of the discussion that no one can reasonably single out anyone here. Throwing out allegations against each other does not help the discussions progress. The bottom line is that it is a contentious debate and just about everyone involved should focus more on the pages under discussion than on those particiapting in them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface's editing behavior is bordering on Tendentious editing (or has already crossed this line), and while not necessarily uncivil in the usual sense, it is extremely tiring in a plonk-worthy sense. S/he has also started disputetagging WP:NOT in the last few days again (with prompt reverts), which had caused much drama at WP:NOT and ANI in the last two months before. I endorse Masem's summary that "the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion." Just to make clear, this note here is not intended to single out Pixelface as the only culprit, but very few editors have had what I perceive as similar bad track records for heating already heated discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of this supposed "tendentious editing"? This board is for civility. And are you saying that WP:NOT#PLOT is *not* currently under discussion, which is what the {{disputedtag}} says, the small text in WP:NOT#PLOT itself says, as well as what the {{fiction notice}} says, which is transcluded on WT:FICT, Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries, and several other places. If you think my comments at WT:FICT are creating an atmosphere that's not healthy to good discussion, I'll be happy to leave and you can see if the atmosphere improves. Would you like me to do that? --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the diffs and just point to your recent history with WP:NOT again. To cite WP:TEND, "the term [tendentious editing] also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors" and (example) "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Maybe Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would have been more fitting (although it refers to article editing), which says "Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by [...] exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity." Are you grossly incivil? - No. Do I perceive your edititing behavior harmful for productive discussion? - Yes. Is WP:WIKIQUETTE the right place to bring this up? - Possibly. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the recent history of you and Masem at WP:NOT? If me and Hobit remove PLOT from NOT [5] [6] [7] and you and Masem insert PLOT back into NOT [8] [9] [10], does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If several people have said on WT:NOT (in Archive 17, 18, 19 and the current talk page) that PLOT should be removed, does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If discussion about PLOT has been going on for three months, does that not indicate that section of policy is under discussion? If Masem states in their edit summary that discussion had not taken place at WT:NOT from March 10 to March 29, when WT:NOT looked like this, who's being tendentious? If I get reverted by an E&C2 party who reports me for "vandalism" for removing PLOT from NOT and I get blocked for vandalism and I leave Wikipedia for a week and that E&C2 party then tells another E&C2 party it was good news I left and several uninvolved editors state my edit was *not* vandalism, who's being tendentious? If the editor who originally added PLOT to NOT removes PLOT from NOT and he's reverted by an E&C2 party, who's being tendentious? If there's an edit war at WP:NOT and I'm not involved and WP:NOT is protected by an E&C2 party who's not uninvolved in the dispute over PLOT, who's being tendentious?

I've been discussing PLOT at WT:NOT since January. It boggles my mind that Gavin.collins, Eusebeus, and Seraphim Whipp think PLOT is not disputed. I know Gavin.collins knows it's disputed, because he's commented multiple times at WT:NOT. I also know Eusebeus knows it's disputed, since he commented in the RFC on PLOT. And having been in an argument with Seraphim Whipp in the past since I dared ask her friend if he had read the vandalism policy since he reported me as a vandal for removing PLOT from NOT, she should be also be aware that PLOT is disputed. Any one of them could click on the history tab for WT:NOT and see which section of that policy has been under discussion for the past three months. While I have repeated some of the same arguments at WT:NOT, I *have* persuaded other people. I've repeated myself at WT:FICT and I *have* persuaded other people. Of the people who have commented at WT:FICT, who has "repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles"? I appear to face opposition from a small group of E&C1 and E&C2 parties, who are biased against a group of articles.

And what are the articles I've disrupted? As someone who's never created a plot-only article and as someone who routinely adds reception information to articles, what are the articles I've disrupted? Do you know many articles some people in the Support section have disrupted? It's funny you ignore all the other incivility at WT:FICT and all the disruption by supporters of Masem's proposal and single me out. It's funny that multiple people in the Support section have been referring to other editors' good faith edits as "vandalism", and you and Masem single me out.

So, seeing as you've opposed my edits to WP:NOT, you have the opposite opinion of the FICT proposal that I do, you decided to summarize the arguments by the opposers but did not also summarize the arguments by the supporters, you said the opposers need something "actionable", you were an involved party of E&C1, and you were contacted by an editor under an editing restriction to perform edits they are not allowed to perform — is this your "neutral third opinion" here on my civility? I haven't even begun to say what I really think at WT:FICT. I've bitten my tongue and I think I've been pretty civil. Of the people who've commented at WT:FICT, I could easily point out who I think are the productive editors and the disruptive ones. I won't be commenting at WT:FICT for a week so you can see for yourself if the discussion becomes productive with my absence. Thanks. I think we can mark this thread as resolved. --Pixelface (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to read such huge blocks of text (as I said elsewhere, my time is limited). But, as you even demonstrate in this thread, your replies tend to be (much) longer than what you are replying to, and you raise new (or the same) points over and over again and request answers until the editors are tired of replying to you (as I am right now), in which case you claim consensus. This is (I guess) exactly what Masem meant with "shout the loudest to make their point overly clear". And this in turn is what I meant with Tendentious editing. (There is no need to reply to this, as I am neither asking you a question, nor am I going to read another huge block of text. I know your position already.) – sgeureka ^t•c 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your time is limited, but you can read this huge block of text at WT:FICT and summarize of all of it? And I haven't been claiming consensus. I've been saying there is no consensus. And it's funny you link to WP:TE at WQA, since TE was created by an admin infamous for their rampant incivility. I won't be replying here anymore. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't read that huge block of text and never claimed I did; I skipped the replies of soapboxing people and was still perfectly able to get the gist of it. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you guys actually want a 3rd-party opinion on this issue, I suggest you take WP:TLDR into account. I for one don't have the time to sort through all of this mess ;p :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe my initial paragraph summarized the issue to the TLDR degree. --MASEM 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree with that. I looked at the diffs, and I don't see anything egregious -- it just kind of sounds like a heated policy discussion. The only diff I'm not sure I care for is "bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong".

As far as repeating the same arguments over and over, this is why I have given up participating in any discussions regarding a change in policy. I frankly can't even stand to read them.  :) If further action needs to be taken beyond observing that, yes, that has been a very frustrating discussion with tensions rising and the occasional ad hominem attack, somebody else needs to do it, because I just can't bring myself to read that debate. Every time I try, my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache :D Pixelface is not helping, but there must be a dozen other editors making equally unhelpful comments. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out WP:TLDR to Pixelface on his Talk page. That much I feel is definitely an appropriate action ;) If we need to go past that, like I say, somebody else will have to do it. Large blocks of text with no paragraph breaks make my head go POP! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is another case of what I certainly believe to be tenatious and uncivil editing. On WT:NOT, Pixelface has posted the same basic arguments with the same links to AFDs to support the point in a matter of 3 hours (not accounting for the fact that Pixelface has used the same points repeated in the same discussion thread or elsewhere on NOT): first time, second time, third. It's one thing to stick to your guns for something you believe in, but this type of discussion is not helpful to reaching a conclusion. --MASEM 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to AFDs where PLOT is ignored is not uncivil, Masem. It actually shows that PLOT does not reflect consensus. Would you like me to show you what real incivility looks like? There are several people at WT:FICT I can cite. --Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To Pixelface: I still don't think this is really a civility issue, but Masem has a point about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of reiterating the same links multiple times. You might consider creating a sub-page off of your user page which summarizes this point, and then you can just very briefly link to that when it is relevant to your argument, e.g. "Many articles that start as plot summaries go on to become FAs, see User:Pixelface/My chosen AfDs". This could help cut down on the verbosity of the discussion, and give your argument more impact.

Masem, what action do you want taken here? I don't see any egregious civility issues, and while Pixelface is being sorta tedious, the discussion itself is inherently tedious and I don't see how that can be avoided. Such is the nature of (or IMO, failure of) the consensus-based decision-making process when you have far too many participants. :/ (which, again, is why I refuse to participate in policy discussions on Wikipedia anymore under any circumstances) I have suggested that Pixelface take a different tack... But if he wants to write way too much text in a discussion that already has way too much text, there's not much that can be done to stop him, I don't think. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you got the one that can be dealt with here: at least as I observed it, the long and mostly repetitive replies were questionable and thus I brought the point up here (and thus why the pre-apologies if they weren't considered a problem). I see no problem if Pixelface wants to refer to an essay of his/her own should they want to reiterate the same points, just to help improve discussion and readability of talk pages. Assuming Pixelface does this, I consider this aspect resolved, and apologize for the inconvinence. There's a larger issue of how Pixelface's general approach to these discussion (the tone and nature) is in line with the resolutions of the ArbCom Episode and Character cases, which would need to have a more formal review beyond what this process can provide (including others that may have escalliated the situation like Ned Scott and TTN) there should the issue continue to grow. --MASEM 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is Pixel's disputatious, passive-aggressive responses & he knows it - he can drop the unconvincing, wide-eyed "who-me?" act. This is why, Pixel, you have been the subject of numerous discussions at AN/I; you STILL have not apologised to User:Moreschi for wasting his time cleaning up after your churlish, pointy and disruptive little outburst on the Symphony pages. Honestly, what are hoping to gain in all this? As far as I can tell, every time you try to push your point, you succeed in warming the cockles of those who already agree with your position, and antagonising most everyone else. Frankly, this is RfC fodder. Eusebeus (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus -- do you have specific complaints about recent behavior? The WP:POINTy symphony merge proposal was a pretty lousy thing to do, but that was like three months ago. The rest of your comment is just ambiguous and vague insults towards Pixelface.

Again I would reiterate to Pixelface's detractors: What action do you want taken? I don't see anything blockable here, and I've already asked Pixelface if he would please be less tedious. If the only tedentious editing he's done recently is at that horribly tedious discussion over at WT:FICT, I'm inclined to write it off as pissing in the ocean -- it's kinda rude and gross, but there was already a lot of nasty water there to begin with. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Findings by Jaysweet (talk · contribs)

I thought it would be worth summarizing my findings, in support of the compromise proposal below.

• Pixelface's nature of argumentation at WT:FICT (repeating the same arguments over, occasional red herrings and borderline ad hominem attacks) is tedious and somewhat disruptive to the consensus process.
• Moreover, not only is this style of argumentation not helpful to consensus, there is also strong reason to believe that it is not helpful to Pixelface's position either. Repeating the same arguments without further elaboration or attempts at compromise has the effect of diluting the argument, and may create a perception that Pixelface does not grasp the issues being raised by the other side. It would be beneficial to Pixelface, as well as the community at large, if he were to take a few steps back and possibly limit the volume of his participation on this discussion.
• Despite the above, Pixelface is far from the only editor engaging in such tedentious behavior at WT:FICT, and furthermore his behavior is pretty much on par with what happens in every policy discussion I have seen. Therefore, I cannot justify any administrative action against Pixelface. Compromise and voluntary compliance are the only options.
• The community would do well to address the dysfunctional process for addressing policy issues. It is my belief that the effectiveness of consensus as a decision-making process begins to fall off rapidly with >7 participants, and with >20 participants it is completely ineffectual. However, this is only my opinion, and any remedy to the dysfunctional policy-setting process is far beyond the scope of WQA.

--Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Findings by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs)

In partial response to Jaysweet:

• The nature of argumentation at WT:FICT (repeating the same arguments over, occasional red herrings and borderline "ad hominen" attacs) is indeed tedious and somewhat disruptive to the consensus process; however, participants on both sides of the discussion have engaged in such behavior.
• This style of argumentation may indeed not be helpful to consensus, but because both sides have done so, neither side is really being helped here at convincing their opposition. Again, participants on both sides are repeating the same arguments without further elaboration or attempts at compromise, which may create a perception that multiple editors do not grasp the isues being raised by the other side. If Pixelface should step back, then so should a number of others again on both sides of the discussion or we should find a way to get totally new editors into the discussion who have not yet commented.
• I obviously agree with this point about administrative action against Pixelface being unwarranted.
• Here I think we need to think of ways of getting the larger community involved in the discussion.

Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with all of this. While I stand by my findings, I think you could replace "Pixelface" with at least a half a dozen other editors and they would be equally true. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WT:FICT compromise proposal

Ooo, just when I was about to give up, there is some hope!

Pixelface, as per above, would you agree to create one or more essays in your user space which summarize your main points, and then rather than constantly reiterate them on WT:FICT whenever a new participant shows up, you can just provide a one- or two-sentence reply directing them to your essay? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally against pointing people to essays. I already told Masem on June 10 that I wouldn't comment at WT:FICT for a week. And I haven't commented there since June 9. That was 4 days ago. On June 17, I will ask Masem if he thinks the discussion at WT:FICT improved with my absence. If Masem thinks it has, I won't comment at FICT until the RFC is over on July 3. I've already given my suggestion above of how I think the discussion could be improved: the fill-in-the-blank questions that I think the community should be asked. I'd be happy to give my opinions on those questions at FICT on June 17. Saying Masem wasted his time rewriting FICT was uncivil of me. Asking Masem "Are you done playing Internet lawyer" was uncivil of me. Masem, I apologize for making those statements. But I think Masem is behaving like he owns WT:FICT. Masem has made 679 edits to the talk page — that's more than anyone else and over 100 more edits than the next editor. For perspective, I've made 36 edits to WT:FICT. I will work on my tone. But other than that, I seriously don't know what Masem wants. I'm not the only one confused. I've asked how FICT applies to various articles with no answer. Masem says WP:NOT#PLOT is not disputed (it is). At this AFD I *added* reception information to the article and Masem dismissed it. Masem's an admin. So please ask Masem if the article that got deleted met the current version of FICT or not. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Naruto134

This user is very uncivil toward new contributors, and has also been warned several times before. He ignores any and all comments posted on his talk page, and is also uncivil in edit comments, calling users "idiots" and "preschoolers". I left a civil comment on his userpage explaining why I felt something should have been included in an article, however, he ignored it and posted a rather harsh comment on my talkpage and threatened to report me. Proof may be found on his talk page here, also here, his comment on my talk page, and here as well. Thank you. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the "preschooler" diff that SWJS mentions. I don't care for this one either. FWIW, it seems like Naruto is acting in good faith. The uncivil edit summaries are a problem, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that's a little unpleasant. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Geogre

I have been subject to regular insults, impugning of character, and refusal to avoid direct questions asked directly regarding the content of an article William Melmoth on that articles talk page and archived talk page, and the editor's talk page, by the editor above named. I wish him to receive formal warning from another party that such behavior is not acceptable. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out this archived ANI thread that is substantively the same controversy. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

John, cut it out. You've been asked to step away from this situation over the course of several days now, by multiple admins, but you have persisted. Threatening people when they question a wikiproject assessment is inappropriate; you were encouraged to engage in discussion originally, but at this point it is best for all that you simply step back. I understand that you are angry that an editor has objected to the assessment made by a member of your wikiproject. Anger rarely improves articles or leads to fruitful conversation, and your anger has led you to make several incorrect statements and less than optimal decisions. If you feel that this matter between the wikiproject and Geogre simply must be straightened out, I suggest that you ask another member of the project, perhaps one who has not insulted Geogre by saying he lied about being an administrator, to continue the discussion. Right now, the two of you are oil and water. Risker (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And I asked several relevant questions which were not answered with anything but aspersions on my character. That is unacceptable. I would welcome having reasonable discussion with Geogre, but he seems either unwilling to engage in such, or incapable of it. Why should such, well, stonewalling, not be told to cease? John Carter (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Risker's advice is very good. Geogre may be "stonewalling" because he has realized he is incapable of continuing the discussion rationally, so it is better to say nothing than to continue to proceed in anger. I have to do the same thing sometimes, and believe me, it drives my wife crazy! ha ha ha... In any case, it is often valuable to just step away until you are not so pissed off. I think that is what Geogre is doing at this point, and I think it would benefit you to do the same. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, presumably, his insulting others rather than directly answering questions directly asked is an indication that he is being reasonable? John Carter (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair question. I suggested to him on his Talk page that if he wants to back away, he needs to do so silently. ;)

I must admit, I feel a little awkward trying to mediate between two admins :o --Jaysweet (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good time to review what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps this would be a good time to reflect on what your objectives were when this discussion started, and whether or not this current course of action will bring the fulfillment of both your own objectives and those of the project. Perhaps this would be a good time to go to the pub and have a bitter. You very much give the impression that what you're doing right now is making you very unhappy, and it isn't leading to the harmonious editing and collaboration that characterises Wikipedia at its best. Geogre can only irritate you if you let him irritate you; if you leave him alone, he will find something else to do. Please step back. Risker (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This and this and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already mentioned this to Geogre on his talk page.

John Carter appears to have moved on (has made several edits today and said nothing to Geogre). Geogre has not been active, but hopefully when he comes back he will also move on. Thanks for the input, but I don't think we really need to see more "evidence" at this point... I just want to put this in the past. It's sad to see two administrators and extraordinarily valuable contributors feuding in such an acrimonious fashion. :( --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Agree. I don't approve of the edit-warring by the subject or the incivility by either party. I'll assess the article in question according to each WikiProject's quality scale (as they differ from project to project) and hopefully that matter is resolved too. I'm marking this WQA as resolved for now, assuming any further edit-warring and incivility ceases. I am hoping topic bans will not be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:AvantVenger and his IP account User:71.114.30.158 -- Gross incivility.

[edit] alternative medicine

[edit] User:Redux

User has been bullying other users at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis for days on end now, while burying other people's arguments under many repeats of the same long-winded rhetorics, against the prevailing consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You may as well add me to the complaint as well, since I'm the first one who broke the assumption of good faith. I'd sum up the ongoing argument as WP:TRUTH v. WP:WIKILAWYERING. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, I stared at that discussion for like 5 minutes, and while I understand what is being debated, I still don't have the slightest clue what each side's arguments are. It's a total mess.

I don't think Redux is violating the civility guidelines or anything (although, with that ridiculous mess of a discussion, who knows? If there is something I missed, feel free to provide a specific diff of the offending behavior), but he/she, along with a number of other editors, are unintentionally muddying the waters to the point where it is impossible to discern any sort of consensus or logic from that discussion.

I have left a note on the page in question suggesting a better way to proceed. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think this will generate results. We just basically have aggressive behaviour by one person who seems to feel the need to voluminously reply to anything said in opposition to him (which represents most people on the page) and perpetually raises straw man arguments and misquotes/twists policy to sound like it agrees with him. There is a bullying attitude, but I wouldn't say it's actually extended to actual bullying at this stage. However there is a clear resistance to developing any consensus which digresses from his own predetermined opinions, and somewhat deliberate attempts to stop it from developing. Orderinchaos 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Redux is not "bullying" or "burying" anyone against the "prevailing consensus." This alert is absurd, ridiculous, and unwarranted (notice the lack of diffs by the original poster) and is yet another effort to short-circuit the debate by those who disagree with the elimination of diacritics in the names of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Completely absurd alert from this user (who btw has followed the discussion during retirement :) ) When is it bullying to state one's opinions? Moreover, sometimes one has to state them again, as some refuse to listen. --HJensen, talk 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

HJensen's own contributions on this topic both now and in previous iterations of the debate elsewhere have been fairly incivil on a fairly consistent basis. Less verbose than Redux, but a hell of a lot more personal. Orderinchaos 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to help out, without going too much into the exact theme of that discussion. Jaysweet, don't feel bad ;), that discussion is at a state now that makes it very, very difficult to catch up. The general theme is actually very similar to this discussion, currently ongoing at the talk page of WP:BLP. That is, what is the extent of community discretion to discredit common usage, once verified, on the basis of unverifiable assertions by users. Particularly, if we are seeing common usage in English-language sources, which would define the title of our article, is it valid for us to claim that all the sources are "wrong" and decide that Wikipedia will right that wrong? My answer to that has been no, because that would be original research and point of view. On the tennis discussion, people are now claiming that they have consensus to retain status quo. We had consensus in a previous discussion to move, but then this consensus was considered "insufficient". I didn't mind. Then, of course, canvassing started to take place. I have also explained that, unless it can be established that shuning verified common usage on whichever ground that is based on user assertion is not original research and point of view, it will mean that we cannot have localized consensus to authorize that, because we have a more significant consensus, established in WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, that says that those are non-negotiable in writing the encyclopedia — so far, people have actually admitted that the sources will indeed show common usage without diacritics, but that that's meaningless for [whatever reason] -- that's not negating OR and POV, that's continuing to give unverifiable reasons why we should ignore the sources, that is, OR and POV..
Now, I have indeed been posting more vehemently, but the purpose of this, and it has been clearly stated, is not to "bury" anyone, but rather to cause discussion. Otherwise, what we have is people coming over and saying "oppose because removing diacritics proves only that no author had a properly configured keyboad". That's not the only claim made, of course, but it is actually one of them. Was that ideal? No more than the alternative would have been: have people "vote" and then claim that, by headcount, there is consensus to maintain [what is essentially] original research and POV. They can, of course, attempt to establish that it is not. That is why we need discussion, not voting. But people only wanted to vote, as it was done in other occasions when diacritics and spellings were discussed. In the discussion that I have been able to provoke, some people have been personally offended for being told that they are wrong, which is all I have done; they have also been refusing to get the point and then insisting that there is no point in discussing it further, calling my counter-argumentation "bulying". Redux (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your argumentative style (not your argument itself) is borderline bullying. You just repeat the same (false) arguments in 500 word essays over and over and over again as if this actually helps debate. The word I was looking for was filibuster. The only reason it is "difficult to catch up" is that any poor sod who wants to figure out what is going on has to read pages of padding from one contributor who seeks to contest every opposing editor/rationale in exactly the same way. This is not discussion, it is a poorly concealed form of social engineering to create a "last man standing" scenario so your arguments, which not only represent a minority viewpoint in the discussion but need greater justification given that they're a change from the previous consensus (demonstrated by no significant changes over a two-year period) will trump others simply because they've been worn into the ground. Moreover you have shown an arrogance and dismissiveness towards other contributors (especially indisputably good faith ones such as Kotniski and Evlekis, from whose contributions to the debate I have found stuff I didn't know) which is entirely unacceptable. These things have stood for a very long time with basically noone challenging them, now we have three or four editors from one project working to try and overturn that. No demonstrable cause has been given for this action, nor has it been put in the context of any actual policy, other than a chronically poorly-worded guideline which seems to trip all over itself and several policies which don't relate to the situation at hand, given that the players' correct names are verifiable in reliable sources with diacritics and no original research needs to be entertained to establish what they are. Orderinchaos 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much point in rehashing the argument here. The point is basically that the two sides are talking past each other and WP:IDHT is the reason why civility has left the conversation. There is a guideline, and one side of the debate rejects that guideline. It's a valid question for the guideline, and WT:UE is probably the place the discussion should happen, though there's a separate proposed policy at WP:UD. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Somedumbyankee has summed it up very well. In a discussion where both sides are completely unwilling to compromise and where communication is rapidly breaking down, a background level of incivility is almost unavoidable. I would urge everyone involved in the discussion to take a deep breath and back away. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, now Redux is not "bullying," he or she is "borderline bullying." Where, oh where, do we draw the line? If you (Orderinchaos) believed Redux's arguments to be "(true)" instead of "(false)," would you believe it OK to post them over-and-over again? I'm asking because that's exactly what the opposition to the tennis moves requests has been doing. In fact, because the opposition appears to be more numerous in terms of numbers of editors who have posted (perhaps because of canvassing), who exactly is trying to create the "last man (or woman) standing scenario" and who exactly is trying to wear whom into the ground? Your silence about this tactic is really quite significant. I've asked before and I'll ask again: supply diffs to support your claims that Redux has been bullying, arrogant, or dismissive. Otherwise, stop making the claims. Finally, you've tried to turn this Wikiquette alert into yet another debate about the substance of the tennis moves request. This is clearly not the appropriate venue for that. Tennis expert (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't - I've focussed squarely on behaviour. Bullying would include threats beyond the action or user talk page stuff, this is borderline bullying as it's stayed within the confines but is still aggressive, dismissive and single-minded, and is clearly operating in a deliberate and tactical manner to drive off other contributors rather than engage with the facts. Also, the oppose side has in general behaved well on this occasion. In a previous debate where I took a similar stance several months ago, some who agreed with my stated position behaved reprehensibly, and it was one of the main reasons I withdrew from that debate after it failed to go to ArbCom. I don't *need* diffs - the RM/Tennis page stands as evidence by itself to any neutral person (and several have in fact reviewed it to that effect). Orderinchaos 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on not needing the diffs yourself. Obviously, you know in your own mind what you mean in your own posts. But it's only fair to readers new to this debate and to Redux that the complainers/accusers supply the diffs. I thought that was required in situations like this. In my opinion, the adamant refusal to provide them despite being asked to do so is persuasive evidence of a lack of evidence to support the complaints/accusations. Therefore, they should be dismissed out-of-hand. Tennis expert (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Adamant refusal" is blatantly false. I was just about to run out for a bus to an all-day class when I wrote that (00:03 = 08:03 AWST), and still have assignments due this coming week, so my time on Wikipedia is limited enough without chasing down diffs for things. Please assume good faith, as I have towards yourself. Orderinchaos 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird on three counts. (1) You are apparently saying that we should assume your good faith and not ask for any diffs when you publicly accuse editors of wrongdoing. That's not how this works. (2) You didn't say anything about needing to catch a bus for an all-day class. Instead, you said, "I don't *need* diffs - the RM/Tennis page stands as evidence by itself to any neutral person...." Because I can't read your mind, that sounded like an adamant refusal to me. But I look forward to your list of diffs to support the "borderline bullying" accusation. (3) As for your always assuming good faith toward me, that really meshes well with your threatened block of me the very first time you ever contacted me on anything, which you later admitted was hasty and unwarranted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if my earlier wording was unclear - I was most certainly not refusing (more expressing incredulity than anything else). I didn't feel it necessary to burden the page with minutiae of my offline life as it seemed irrelevant at the time. As for your point 3, I did apologise and retract (not only on your talk page but also openly on AN/I) as soon as I realised I had chronically misunderstood the situation. There was in this case a separation between intent and result - the result of the action had been disruptive, but there was no intent to disrupt and I realised you'd been left somewhat holding the can for the decisions of others. As an aside, if you note that I did not initiate *this* action but yet seem to have been left with it by its initiators, there is a surprising amount in common between your position then and mine now. Orderinchaos 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I would encourage those involved to read WP:WQA#Findings by Jaysweet (talk · contribs), as well as WP:WQA#Findings by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) above -- except, replace "Masem" with "Guido den Broder", replace "Pixelface" with "Redux", replace "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" with "Tennis expert", and replace "WT:FICT" with "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis". It's essentially the same exact problem... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about (replace "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" with "Tennis expert")? Tennis expert (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I felt that Le Grand's role in the WP:WQA#User:Pixelface discussion further up this page is pretty similar to your role in this discussion. (And you should take that as a compliment, I thought Le Grand was being quite rational ;D ) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was confused because that user tried to end the discussion with "findings." Even I (who has a clearly expressed preexisting opinion) would not be enough of a bully (or filibusterer or oppressor or liar (or arrogant or dismissive SOB)) to attempt that tactic.  ;-) Tennis expert (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(As an aside, filibuster effectively means jamming the airwaves to prevent debate - I don't think you could be accused of that in this case!) Orderinchaos 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, fair point. He was putting his opinion in juxtaposition to the "Findings" section I had already created based on what I saw as a 3rd party. Maybe a bit heavy-handed, but I appreciated his comments anyway.

Anyway, you're right, that part of the analogy is weak. But the overall similarity between the discussions is striking... In both cases, the complaint is about a user who is endlessly repeating themselves on a hopelessly tedious policy discussion. That's definitely not helpful, but I'm not going to go issuing a warning to Redux (or Pixelface) when there are a half a dozen other people on that page on both sides of the argument being just as repetitive and tedious :D

The same advice I gave to Pixelface would apply here: Summarize your arguments on a subpage in your user space, and then link to that rather than repeat yourself. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Totophi

User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a rather long comment on the content dispute (for once, this is in an area where I have some experience and knowledge), and IMO the evidence falls in your favor, Nrswanson. But the problem, as you stated, is that personal attacks are now going both directions - more so from Totophi and the anonymous IP toward you than the other way, but I see evidence that you're both getting heated up about this. So I recommend you all step back and cool down a bit. Remember, attack the content, not the editor.

If this continues past the latest parts of the discussion (including my comments there), let me know and I'll take a closer look and/or issue warnings as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as this are completely unacceptable:

• Totophi wrote at 10:17 on 12 June: "My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way." Et cetera.

That should earn him a block for incivility. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's grounds for an instant block, which is what seems to be requested here. Yes, it is uncivil, and yes it is overstepping the line, but Totophi later showed some signs that he was willing to calm down and stop being disruptive, and the purpose of a block is to reduce or prevent disruption. If a warning has been given, it would be in bad form to then block him without a continuation of the behavior that got him the warning. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted as Totophi's actions prove his continued contempt for wikipedia's guidelines.Nrswanson (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cberlet

What can be done about these kind of comments - Revert: the point is to help readers--not masturbate over ideology, You are both acting like total jerks. Please stop edit warring? Few months ago I tried to contact him on his talk page but he removed my comment with edit summary remove POV warrior spam. -- Vision Thing -- 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to reach him on the talk page is from two months ago, so I don't consider that particularly relevant. However, the "masturbation" edit summary is inappropriate, and I have warned the user accordingly. I am about to look into the edit-warring that sparked the incivil edit summary and will report back about what I find. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)