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 (⇒) Request comments (⇒) Wikiquette alerts (⇒)
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Request mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Request arbitration
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions

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 diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs 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, 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 five 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) five days 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:Thegreyanomaly

[edit] RobJ is trouble

[edit] User:B'er Rabbit

This user is upset about an AfD he feels is incorrect (which is of course acceptable), but responds to this with personal attacks. If this was a one-off incident, I wouldn't really care, but he has done this to multiple users[7], and looking at his recent contribs, also a lot worse on completely unrelated pages"anal-retentive utter douchebags". A warning on his talk page was met with even worse PA's (IP, but looking at the contribs and language, it looks very likely that it's the same user)"You are a straight up ass hole", "you major pig-headed DOUCHE of the world". User claims to have retired. Input from uninvolved people may be helpful here. Fram (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

...already at WP:ANI for hopefully an enforced retirement, and as it requires verification that the IP editor was indeed the user. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User was given a 2-week break in the briar patch on June 27 [8] which will hopefull chill him down sufficiently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ChyranandChloe

ChyranandChloe has dominated Health effects of tobacco and the associated Talk page, and there are huge WP:Ownership issues which are preventing the article being edited in the usual way, and have lead to the article becoming POV. See Talk:Health effects of tobacco#Ownership and POV. Johnfos (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is more of a content dispute than a civility issue. I would recommend initiating a request for comment on the articles talk page in order to involve more users and form a consensus on what form the article should take. I do see the problem you have identified though, Chloe does appear to want to retain control of the article, which is not acceptable. I'm going to leave a note on her talk page to that effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnfos's comment is a personal attack. My intentions are simple, improve the article. Do I believe the actions conducted by Johnfo improves the article? No. The statements in the discussion explains how. Do I believe my comment was well written? No, if I could take it back, I would. Does this imply that the comment is without merit? No. Now, before templating, ask how. Are you saying, Beeblebrox, that because I "want to control the article", I should be dismissed, without reasonable discussion, and without an objective assessment? I believe this article, and those who work on it, should receive and objective assessment that does not attack character first and content second. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please read my above remark, in which I clearly acknowledge that the core problem here is a content dispute and I suggest appropriate remedies. I don't see any blatant incivility or personal attacks or anything like that coming from either of you, but you do seem to want to keep "your" version of the article. That's all I'm trying to indicate, and I think the simplest way out is to initiate an rfc, both of you state your case, then let others chime in until a rough consensus is reached on the article's structure. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion over content between me and Johnfos over the issue of Sections "Prognosis" and "Cancer". The previous was ambiguously short, and quickly resolved itself. It feels like we're skipping steps. A RFC entails that we've actually made our statements about content, so far its been about character. Now, you have stated that I "want" to retain my version of the article, which is "not acceptable". First, support your claim. How does one revert, and one comment, both of which are applicable under WP:BRD, become unacceptable? I understand the dispute resolution process, Beeblebrox. Content is discussed on the article's talk page. Wikiquette is about behavior, and that is the central point I am discussing on this talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy with the way the article is at present, but if someone wishes to start an RfC that's fine. I feel there is an opportunity here to discuss the ownership issue, as it does fundamentally relate to wikipedia etiquette. I would like to know why ChyranandChloe made all these "I" statements (See Talk:Health effects of tobacco#Ownership and POV) as if she owned the article:

• • "I chose the section titled "Prognosis" for a reason."
  • "I chose "Prognosis" ..."
  • "I layed out the article ..."
  • "I actually decided not to have a "Cancer" section ..."
  • "I chose to break it down ..."

-- Johnfos (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Two parts. The first, to write a comment to be more objective, such as stating the points without acknowledging who is making those points, would have been possible. However writing in such a manner is unnatural and hard to reply to. The intent was never to create a sense of ownership. This appears to be a misunderstanding leading to the accusation. The intent was to prod Johnfos to discuss the issue while plainly making (1) what the disagreement was about and (2) who he was going to be disagreeing with. The second part, was accuracy. Alluding to the "2008-2009 Copyedit" proposal.[9] Without using "I" felt like shirking responsibility that: I was the one who laid out the article you are dissatisfied with in the past—and with that acknowledgement, that would seem offensive.

Now you have a person to disagree with and the background to why the person is disagreeing with you, discussion seems a lot more natural—unlike the previous one where you've only minced a sentence worth of words without exploring into any detail what you or I were trying to accomplish and what we could do together to improving it.[10] 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of number of edits on the article and Talk page, you have dominated for a long time. Have you ever really considered that perhaps you've used all those "I" statements because you have a huge personal investment in this article and want to retain control over it? It remains to be seen whether you can step back a little and encourage other editors on the page instead of pushing your own agenda. I would particularly like to see User:FocalPoint being encouraged, as I feel he keeps a close watch on what is going on, and has had some good ideas in the past which haven't been taken up. And please bear in mind that if someone does a handful of edits and provides good edit summaries, there often is no need for discussion on the Talk page. It is not as if people have to OK their edits with you, is it. Johnfos (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are continuing the presumption that I dominate the article. I completely disagree. I have considered the use of the word "I", which was explicitly stated two comments ago "Do I believe my comment was well written? No[...]"; and from which I have further described the "misunderstanding" in my previous comment.

Now your second assertion that: I "have dominated for a long time". I have the most edits. To specify an exact date, my first edit was in August 2008,[11] but I didn't seriously work on it until December of 2008 with the "2008-2009 Copyedit" proposal.[12] A long time? No, at least not in the context that this article was created in 2006.[13] Now for the second part, do I dominate the article? No, I ask about content: this is always the first question I always ask. The answer to that question, judged objectively, is the answer I go by. Personal investment is a misunderstanding, I go by what improves the article.

So far you have answered little about content and much about foul play. Now before you continue to what amounts to whining: are you saying that because you have done none, asked none, you derserve that this comment be an apology? That is, a consensus resolve is an apology. When this is about character, the objectivism I offer in content disputes—how I gave Focalpoint and RFC to his liking,[14] and how I offered MastCell much needed work[15]—are off. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have dominated the article and its Talk page for a long time, and you are continuing to take a domineering and aggressive attitude here and now. Instead of taking a mature "tell me more" approach to the ownership issue I am raising you have resorted to immature name calling about "personal attacks", "foul play", "whining" etc. Please try to understand and accommodate what others are saying more and this will help you grow as an editor. Johnfos (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to point out the civil attitude I have received from User:ChyranandChloe in the call made by the user for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I hope that this attitude will continue here.
• More, I see that User:Johnfos has made no personal remarks here.
• On the issue discussed here, I will not devote a lot of time searching the history of the article, I will just deposit my personal experience: With this edit I understand that ChyranandChloe proposes to me that I work on sandboxes for the article in the user's namespace (User:ChyranandChloe/Workshop 17 and User:ChyranandChloe/Workshop 15). These sandboxes maybe appropriate for ChyranandChloe preparing a text, but they are not the proper way for other users to edit the article. If someone else would edit there, it would mean that the edits would be vetted by ChyranandChloe instead of being in full view from all the people who are interested in the article. I assume good faith, but I also see that the claim for "WP:Ownership issues which are preventing the article being edited in the usual way" is reasonable. I believe that ChyranandChloe should consider User:Beeblebrox's suggestions.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PeeJay2K3

I have been involved in discussions with User:PeeJay2K3 on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#National team yearly articles? and the user seems to be WP:HOUNDING. I have civilly given enough evidence to support my opinion on the matter and am ready to just leave it as it. My concern however is that this particular user has a vendetta to prove. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is something we say again and again here. Two editors find themselves in an argument, and go around and around without stopping to seek outside input, until finally they begin resorting to insults and so forth. If a content dispute goes two or three "rounds" without anyone changing their position, it is time to seek more input as opposed to continuing with endless circular debate. In cases where only two editors are involved a third opinion can be quite helpful. In more involved disputes you can initiate a request for comment. Both of you seem to be intelligent and helpful editors who just didn't know when to step back and let it go for a minute. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In my observation of two of the rows between the two, I would suggest that the complainant here is more in the wrong than the "defendant", both in terms of factual accuracy of the position they are arguing here, the proper use of an encyclopaedia here, and willingness to turn a discussion of facts or principles into a personal issue (first of the above), and also seems happy do undermine a proposal for a unified, encyclopaedic approach with sarcastic parody, as here. Kevin McE (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with User:Kevin McE, it is PeeJay2K3 who is in the right on this occasion. - fchd (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Balkanian`s word

Recently, User:Balkanian`s word embarked on a campaign to refer to me exclusively as "The reverter" [16] [17], which I find highly disparaging as well as an attempt to discredit me. After I reported him here, he agreed not to do it anymore [18] [19]. But now, he has started again, using this section heading to refer to me [20]. I really do not appreciate this, especially after he said he wouldn't do it anymore. --Athenean (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked sorry to the editor on User talk:Athenean; but he is not willing to stop reverting every page I edit. In this case I added some sources, and Athenean reverted them saying that "there is no inline"; while he could just request inlines without reverting it or put there a {{dubious}} or {{inline}} template. His attitude is quite non-wiki; trying only to remove everything which mentions "Albanian" or "Albanian".Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Logger9 dumping off-topic material in various solid-state-physics articles

While working on glass transition, I stumbled over long sections that are cleary off-topic, dealing with the physics of glasses, but having no relation to glass-liquid-transition. It quickly turned out that these sections were contributions by User:Logger9. I invited him to discuss the contents section by section, but instead he just reverts my edits.

Looking deeper into the links and into his other contributions, I found that over the past months he has been pasting entire sections of text almost indiscriminately in quite a number of different articles, with only loose connection to the subjects therof. Just one examples: a section about transparent ceramics has been inserted in the articles Nd:YAG laser, transparent alumina, and Aluminium oxynitride. In each case, the insertion featured a micrograph from a 1983 PhD thesis (obviously his own) that has only very, very remote connection to the subject.

another example: redundant and idiosyncratic material in the biography John W. Cahn.

In the sequel, I spent an entire evening cleaning up. In my opinion, this case reveals a severe problem with quality control. I think, people who saw Logger9's contribution were just so impressed by the scientific apparence (tons of references ! reading lists reaching down to Fourier's theory of heat !) that they did not feel competent and confident enough to protest that the material, in the context into which is was pasted, was bordering blatant nonsense.

Vandals have never been a serious threat to WP. But how to deal with a user who does 20% good, 80% harm ?

-- Paula Pilcher (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be an ordinary difference of opinion about the content of articles which ought to be resolved by the usual processes of dispute resolution such as RFC. User:Paula Pilcher seems to be escalating to inappropriate places such as WT:AFD#Too complicated and bringing the matter here seems inappropriate too. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget about WT:AFD#Too complicated, please. That was meant as a more general comment on bureaucratic procedures that increase the assymetry between those who bring nonsense in and those who try to keep it out. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see above where it is explained, "What WQA CANNOT do: Intervene in content disputes ... Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just between two users. It's pretty clear that before me several other editors have tried to convert Logger9 into a productive contributor, and they have all given up. And so will I, if upon this alert the community does not prove capable of dealing with this special kind of trolling. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but something has to be done. Many other editors have had similar problems with Logger9 in the past, see two very long threads on Talk:Glass. We ended up compromising by allowing Logger9 to create the article Physics of glass. However this article is extremely technical and pushes the POV of Logger9 rejecting the views of everybody else. In general Logger9 will not accept ANY removal whatsoever of their content and will simply revert the efforts of other users who attempt to disagree with their POV (And will NOT engage in any form of discussion about it). The reason why I tolerated the creation of Physics of glass was because I simply wanted to stop the edit warring and conflict caused by the Logger9 at the Glass article, in particular to stop the inisitent copy and pasting of huge portions of the same text into numerous other articles which took us a lot of time to put right. Although evidently a lot of work has gone into Logger9's contributioins, so far none of us have been able to sufficiently understand the content to be able to comment on its factual accuracy. However the key POV that Logger9 is pushing is that glass behaves as a Solid and as a Liquid. To be honest this idea is an established fantasy, yet Logger9 is attempting to push their beliefs in Physics of glass and will not compromise. You are absolutely correct in that we do not feel competent enough to protest the material, however this just goes to show how unencyclopedic the material actually is, when editors who work in the field of glass cannot even understand it! Jdrewitt (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Same situation for Phase transformations in solids: seems to be left to him as a playground for stuff he cannot land in Phase transition. Idem kinetic theory of solids, now blocked because of copyright violation. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Glassy state was another dump ground for his blunder. Nobody else took note, let alone care of. I replaced it by a redirect to glass. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the history of that article you will see that we have had problems with this article and its content previously. The major issue here is that Logger9 will not engage in any conversation with us about wikipedia policy and how to write an article that is accessible to all readers. In general Logger9 does act in good faith and has contributed a lot to wikipedia. They are not a malicious user and their conduct is not really the issue here, edit warring being the only real issue conduct wise. The main issue is that Logger9 simply doesn't agree with us that there is anything unencylcopedic about their contributions and it is difficult to engage in discussion with them about how to make the articles adhere with wikipedia policy. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Paula..I'm reading some of the issues, but can I please ask that you use an edit summary for every single post on Wikipedia - it helps us to understand what's happening, what's been added, or what's been subtracted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden says, I should transfer this discussion to RFC. RFC says, Request_comment_on_users is the appropriate section. Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users says before starting the procedure two users should contact the user in question on his talk page. So I did: User_talk:Logger9#Reverts_and_deletions. Now I am waiting for a second person to admonish Logger9, and then we see whether further action is needed. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An RfC for the specific articles involved would be more appropriate, e.g. there are issues raised at talk:Physics of glass which have still not been addressed and it would be very helpful if the issues raised could receive wider attention. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am both completely uninvolved and ignorant of the subject matter, but I was invited to look into the matter at Glass transition, and full protected the article as a result of edit warring. Logger9 was on the verge of a 3RR violation today, and Paula Pilcher and Colonel Warden both reverted as well for a total of about 7 reverts today (June 27) alone. Very few editors are using edit summaries on that page, and when the are they tend to be unhelpful. Several of Logger9's comments on the talk page are incivil, and in general I see little effort to discuss changes and gain consensus. Unfortunately, the most recent version, which is the one I protected (per policy) is Logger9's preferred version. Nevertheless, hopefully the protection will force all those involved to make an effort to discuss the changes they'd like to see to the article. I've given them 7 days to try. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• The facts of the matter may be seen at edit history of Glass transition. Logger9 reverted 3 times but Paula Pilcher reverted 5 times. Paula Pilcher thus broke 3RR after being warned specifically about this. The article has been protected upon the version that she was warring for, not Logger9's version as Exploding Boy states. So far as civility is concerned - our main purpose here - Paula Pilcher seems quite uncivil, being overly given to ad hominem attacks. Logger9's may seem uncommunicative but perhaps someone should tell him of these proceedings. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I protected immediately after I saw your most recent revert, Colonel Warden, but it seems Paula managed to slip in another revert as I was protecting the page. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And having reviewed her contributions, I have temporarily blocked Paula for edit warring, although she has indicated she is planning to take a break for a few days anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Unfortunately, the most recent version, which is the one I protected (per policy) is Logger9's preferred version."

Nothing could be further from the truth. All of my original work has been removed. So be it! -- logger9 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read a little further down you'd have seen that I began protecting the article while your preferred version was live, but it was reverted one more time before I was done. However, protection isn't about whose version is preserved; it's about preventing an ongoing edit war and giving everyone a chance to discuss and build consensus about the article. As to your "original work," if you are referring to original research, that's not what we do at Wikipedia. In any case, every version is stored in the article history and can be easily retrieved. So please: go to the Talk:Glass transition page and explain to your fellow editors exactly what changes you would like to see on that article, build consensus, and work together instead of edit warring. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's NOT original research (though I figured that you would come up with that). As I stated clearly, it is my original work on the article. And you have crushed it in its entirety. If you want to replace it, then do so. If not, then don't. I am here to place the work in front of you (which by the way has taken a lifetime to assemble). If you choose not to use it, that is your issue.

The new editor in question is completely irrational about it. Of course you have kept her version. She muscles herself in, and has you all on some kind of crazy witchhunt. She is sequentially attacking every single thing I have ever done for Wikipedia. I have worked VERY hard for this organization. And this is the result ?

No thank you. There is no point in me spending days on end in some emotionally overheated unending discussion. I told folks in the beginning: If you don't like my work I'm outtahere. I was asked specifically to stay and produce. And that is exactly what I have done. Now if you want to let some crazy lady waltz in and waste it all step by step, feel free. As far as my "fellow editors" go, it is quite clear what she thinks of it. She has performed unwarranted and unjustified blanket deletions of every single byte of it repeatedly. While I have accepted ALL of hers. And you openly accuse me of being just as bad as her ? I don't see any comparison at all, in terms of our repeated reverts. I am merely trying to keep an animal level contributor from voraciously eliminating every single thing that I contributed to that article. She curses me openly and calls me names. And I have absolutely NO idea why. There seems to be some sort of inappropriate (and highly unprofessional) personal vendatta here. And she(?) clearly has a massive agenda.

Do what you want with it. My work is yours if you want it, and you (and she) have currently chosen not to use it -- thus rewarding her handsomely for her final unwarranted revert. It's quite a game you have going there.

The work is all I can offer. The work is WHAT I DO.

What she does is.....well....you know......-- logger9 (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The best place to handle something like this, in my experience, is a WikiProject such as WikiProject Physics, because there you get a pool of experts in the topic area. If multiple editors come to an agreement that the contributions of an individual editor are disruptive, they can combine to revert edits that don't "play ball" without themselves reverting more than once per day. In situations like that, admins will almost always side with the group rather than the "rogue" editor. One-vs-one edit-warring is always a losing proposition for both sides, regardless of who is right. (Disclaimer: I am not an admin, and this approach is not officially sanctioned, but in my experience it is the only approach that really works.) Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. That is why I have expressed my concerns there (WP:Glass) over all three articles she is attempting to waste. We have already agreed to do some rebuilding of what she has managed to lay complete waste to. But regarding this particular issue, I think that they are all having too much fun watching what happens here before they put anything on record. No one is saying ANYTHING about this one. They are just watching my trying to stay afloat by my own individual effort, time and energy.... -- logger9 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide links to these discussions? On Wikiproject:Glass I see one comment posted by you and answered by no one. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what I said. -- logger9 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Nobody has crushed anything, Logger9. The article was protected per the protection policy: without my making a determination as to whose version might be "right." The point of protection, as has been explained to you numerous times, is simply to put a stop to edit warring. The protection I have placed on the article is temporary, as was also explained, and has eliminated nothing, as all previous versions can be accessed via the page history.

As I have also explained to you, Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-built, discussion-driven project where, irritating as it may be, things will not always go our way. If you don't want to work in such an environment, or if you prefer not to have your writing ruthlessly edited, then write a book or create your own website about the things you care about.

To be frank, you're not helping your case. I'm making no judgment on the article content, but while Paula's reverting was problematic enough to earn her a block, your own behaviour is also problematic. Since the article was protected I've seen no effort on your behalf to discuss the problems you see with Glass transition. On a project like Wikipedia you cannot simply make it known that you see no point in engaging in discussion and threaten to leave if people don't like your work. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have placed a notice on the Wikiproject:Physics talk page, as well as on the RFC articles talk page and on the Wikiproject:Science talk page. In regards to the above post, if multiple editors come to an agreement that is called consensus; that is what we do here, and what Logger9 needs to do on the article in question. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the statement about your "original work," I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I own nothing here, and I make no claim to. As I said, the work is all yours to do with as you see fit. I mean, it's not like I can take it back, right ? Use it if you choose to. I sincerely hope that you choose to use it for educational purpose :-) And if not, no hard feelings. I have a very full life in the academic arena. I am just trying to help here. -- logger9 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

She is not collaborating. She is blanket editing. And you are supporting it wholeheartedly. -- 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logger9 (talk • contribs)

How? By blocking her? Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By putting us in the same boat with regard to level of offense. I have accepted her work. I have collaborated. She has openly refused to accept mine. And yet her version stands. -- logger9 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So now she does not have to justify her work. Everything is just blanketly accepted. And yet I do ? -- logger9 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to make a determination about which of you is right, only to prevent the edit war that had taken over that article. What I am telling you is that you can end this edit war and prevent future ones by establishing a consensus about the article's content and presentation on its talk page. Nothing is just accepted: consensus is always required. Whatever consensus is reached may not satisfy you completely; you may feel it's unjust or unnecessary to discuss these issues; but that's how it goes. That a version of the article you dislike happened to be the one that was protected is only coincidence. I urge you to move on. Take your concerns about the article content to its talk page. Build consensus. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I hear you -- but my defense of that work is already there ........Massively. -- logger9 (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. If there is clear consensus, then that should be clear on the article's talk page. Is it? If it's not clear, then it's time to make it clear. Go to the talk page, start a new section about the relevant issue(s), and begin the conversation. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And so I did. -- logger9 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reacted to an invitation by User:Exploding Boy at Talk:Glass to help mediating this conflict. Upon reading this discussion, I understand the conflict has spread over several pages, but I shall start with Glass transition indicated as the hottest spot. Let me introduce myself first.

• As a trained materials scientist I have worked in several areas, including a few years in a glass research lab. While observing their activities, I was not involved in that research and have never had personal interest in that topic.
• On wikipedia, I have had experience with scientific disputes and their resolution.
• To the best of my knowledge, I have not collaborated with any editor involved here.
• I have not read any of the articles being discussed (except maybe for quick technical cleanup of transparent alumina).
• I am not an administrator and would like to ask User:Exploding Boy to help when administrative advice or action is needed.
• From what I have read about this dispute, I see excessive amount of personal attacks and reverting actions. First thing I propose is to stop that, by all parties and all means, and focus on content discussion at talk pages first. Would anyone who opposes that (e.g. "I'm fed up with talks and will fight anyone" or "Who is this guy to teach me what to do") please speak up. On my side, I pledge to be as objective as I can, trying to improve the content of the discussed pages. Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sikh-history

Civility issues due to the Sunny Leone article. Tabercil, an administrator, had originally removed an assertion that violated WP:BLP.[21] Mr. Sikh-history responded with a revert and a warning of ownership against Tabercil.[22] I revert back and warn Sikh history twice about assuming good faith.[23] He sends me two ownership warnings.[24] What to do... what to do? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no real civility issues - what the three of you have is a content dispute, and at least 2 of you are handling it poorly. Open an WP:RFC for the article in order to get a 3rd opinion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Halfacanyon accusing me of POV-pushing, lying, etc...

User:Halfacanyon has been assuming bad faith right from the beginning. He is taking my edits very personally and in spite of my long responses to his accusations he continues to be hostile. talk page. dispute at Israeli settlements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you have not advised the other user of this WQA filing for their response... please do ASAP. Second, this appears to be both a content dispute AND WP:RS dispute that has led to wholesale tit-for-tat "you're a liar, no you're a liar" dispute. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This rather unwise tit-for-tat posting at ANI should be glanced at. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure people were aware of Half's accusations before it got out of hand. Half was extremely hostile from the very beginning and as I explained in the ANI, he claimed ALL my edits violated wiki policy. He said I deleted references, removed cited material and then when I explained why that wasn't the case he accused me of POV-pushing, trolling, and demanding I "take a break" because I am incapable of editing fairly. I disagree with the tit-for-tat scenario, though I do see your point. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Greek love

Some quiet words from third parties on user talk pages is possibly required, here. For more information, see what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Greek love. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• If it's already at AN/I, then there's not really much we can do. Wikiquette alerts is an informal mediation process, but its already up for the admins to take a look at, there's no need for two separate discussions. Fingerz 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What you can do is have those quiet words. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:VitasV

I don't normally do this, rather I try to focus on editing and ignore the bullshit but this user just struck a nerve.

User has an extensive history of warnings and notices on his talk page dating back to 2007 which he promptly removes without reply and no consideration of his actions showing he has not learned anything. So much so that he decided to have a banner at the top of his talk page stating anything he finds "annoying" will be removed. I understand that it's not against policy to blank his talkpage but this user is causing a clear disruption to the project, and still is violating WP:CIVIL. He's already been given a long and civil welcome and plenty of help by a thoughtful user looking to mentor him, which of course he deleted [25]. Given his immature age I can understand him being cut some slack for his actions but this has gone on too long. If he doesn't learn anything and just blanks warnings then goes on his merry way repeating his mistakes then what good is he to the project. I don't have a recommendation on what action to take here, I just thought it prudent that there be some kind of log of his disruption outside of his own talk page. Most of the disruption was done in 2007 but now it seems this user has returned and clearly hasn't learned a thing judging by his recent edits.

Just a few examples of disruption:

Previous Wikiquette alert: [26]

Previous blocks for 3RR violation: [27]

Violating WP:OR and WP:V [28] [29] [30]

Clear trolling: (most recent) [31] [32] [33]

Edit warring: [34]

Ownership of articles: [35] [36]

Incivility: [37]

Removing speedy deletion tags: [38]

Reckless editing/Removal of references: [39] [40] [41]

Personal attacks against users: [42] [43]

Vandalism: [44] [45]

Stubborn refusal to work with other editors: [46] [47]

Blanking talkpage full of nothing but a whole slew of warnings: [48] [49]

All this plus dozens of uploads of non-free media. -- œ^™ 10:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the "most recent" diff's that you provide are from March. As you probably already know, removal of warnings is tacit acceptance of that warning. I'm not sure what you're looking for from WQA? If you think this is long-term activity, it needs WP:RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually most recent was just a couple days ago. I'm not really looking for anything except to have his behaviour noted by the community as it stands now. In case the disruption continues, a decision can be made for further action. -- œ^™ 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tfz (Purple Arrow / Purple), User:HighKing and User:Dunlavin Green

I'm reporting personal attacks against me and lack of etiquette from the above-mentioned users with regard to their comments on [Talk:Military history of Britain|this talk page]]. This is somewhat surprising considering Tfz's stated opinion of "trolling", "respect" and "posturing" (see his talk page).

Diffs:

• "his typical pov-motivated editing" (by User:Tfz)
• "page move was performed by User:Setanta747 who has previous history" (by User:HighKing)
• "According to his homepage he's a British unionist in the northeast of Ireland so that gives us all perspective on the politics behind both changes" (by User:Dunlavin Green)
• "And when you look at the edit history of that editor, Setanta747, you start to understand that the motives were inspired by his anti-Irish/pro-British sentiment and nothing more, and has since left the project" (by User:HighKing)

I have no idea how many more personal attacks against me might have come into being in Wikipedia over the last few months, but I would like to see them, and inability to assume good faith, eradicated.

A note to HighKing: I couldn't possibly be anti-Irish, as I am Irish myself. Just because you may be prejudiced, there is no reason to tar everyone else with your own brush. You clearly know nothing of my "motives". --Setanta 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Until I see both an apology and a full retraction of "Just because you may be prejudiced", I won't even start looking any further. Supposed incivility should not be reported with incivility of its own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ottava Rima - Incivility and disruptive threats

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Hunting of the Snark[[50]]

User talk:Ottava Rima#Civility

I'd like to raise Ottava Rima's incivility and threats based on bad faith here in hoping that the user can have an object evaluation on his inappropriate conduct toward me. The user is known for incivility and the fact that he has been even blocked from Wikipedia Review for his trolling and harassment against editors there. The user has accused me of destroying his FP format and being disruptive because I tried to help him on formatting. That is absurd. I've participated in reviewing images on FPC pages, and I've never seen Ottava Rima active there.

Today, I saw a group of images of The Hunting of the Snark is nominated as a Featured Picture Set, and it had received no review yet. I thought the images take too much space compared to other nominations, so that is why nobody seemed to comment on the images themselves. I suggested him to rearrange it for viewers[51], and one admin agreed with my suggestion.[52] He said if I can rearrange it, do it[53], so I did with time.[54] I even created a new sandbox just for the occasion.[55] Obviously, he did not like my formatting, and kept insisting that my computer is error[56] because he suspected my computer may make the image arrangement look irregular.[57] I said it is not because I bought my computer just a week ago[58], and suggested him to check his own.[59] then he increased his rudeness and attacked me of being disruptive and destroying the format and his nom.[60] Instead of becoming uncivil, he could've just said "I'll revert your edit because that is not what I intended". Then, I would be okay with it since he seems to be too stressed by seemingly his first FP nomination and the fact that none has commented for his nomination.

However, he denounced my intention and action "disruptive" over and over and threaten me to report me if I would not remove our discussion to elsewhere.[61] and said "untruth" that with my computer, the 5 images are shown in horizontal lines.[62][63] I visited his talk page for resolving the issue, and reminded him to be civil, but no fruit. What I can not bear with his serial and false accusations[64] is that he does not assume good faith on my trial to help him. I've got a FP and have participated in reviewing images on here and Commons, so I really do not understand his hostility and accusations. I movdd our discussion to its talk page per his request[65], but he continued his incivility and harassment (he said he will seek for me to be blocked if I do not remove my discussion, and his such threats fit for him behavior), so I ask your opinion on this. Thanks.--Caspian blue 02:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above user is declaring things as incivil or personal attacks which are clearly not. The above user is also causing problems and has only caused disruption. The above is just more bullying and will only be stopped by Caspian being blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, Ottava Rima's another harassment and threats. If you do not retract the absurd personal attacks, well, your bullying and harassing behavior should earn "block".--Caspian blue 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Per NPA, your false accusation of me making a personal attack is a personal attack and a violation of NPA. This is the third time tonight you have violated policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The basic cause of this disagreement seems to be the fact that Ottava doesn't really understand what the word "row" means, and confuses it with "column". These sorts of misunderstandings can be very annoying, but taking them to the level of a WQA is also annoying. Instead of pursuing this, both editors should now go away and come back tomorrow, after having a chance to calm down. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even close, Looie. The basic problem was that it was formatted fine and fit in WP:FPC and his formatting caused a massive disruption. He then caused disturbance because he chose to rather bicker about something that had nothing to do with reviewing pictures and then started attacking me on multiple pages to further the disruption. And calm down? I am completely calm, so your comments are absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A good faith edit should never be described as a "massive disruption." I agree with Looie, this shouldn't have made it to WQA. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruption is a result. It has nothing to do with intentions. You can accidentally delete the main page and it will still be a massive disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're being disruptive, so you can not accept good faith helping of mine and I think the format looks more tidy than yours that unnecessarily takes too much space.--Caspian blue 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the absurd allegation of "disruption" against me. I've helped out formatting nominations with multiple images on FPC and they appreciated my help unlike Ottava Rima's bad faith. You said I can rearrange them, and the poem is "non-sense poem", so I did it just for you. I clearly did under your permission. However, since Ottava Rima has threaten me to be blocked repeatedly for his unreasonable disliking of my formatting, I have no hope that he behaves "civil" to me. For DR, I've brought the problem of Ottava Rima to the right place. If I demand a block for his threats and harassment, well I'd have gone to AN/I instead of reporting here. Ottava Rima's bad faith accusation is already pointed out by others here.---Caspian blue 03:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It is 100% obvious to anyone who looks at WP:FPC while Caspian blue's three column edit was in place that the page was disrupted because of the formatting. And you can be called disruptive without AGF at all, as disruption is a result of action and has nothing to do with intent. Just like NPA and CIVIL, you have misstated AGF. These are serious problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That is your "wishful thinking". You're indeed continuing to violate NPA and CIVIL and AGF. Your first contribution to FPC is just like this, I believe you would repeat this seriously rude behavior to reveiweers.--Caspian blue 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Enough, could you both please just take a few hours to do just cool down? This is really much ado about nothing. Soxwon (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Ottava Rima's threats are not worthy to report?--Caspian blue 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm thinking of selling tickets to watch this little row. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
            • C'mon bugs...As for Blue, why should you care if his threats are unjustified? I don't really see anything worth taking offense over from either of you until the discussion had degenerated to the point that it was nothing but slinging accusations back and forth. Soxwon (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Bugs, you love me so much, but didn't I say what allergy I have? :) At Soxwon, if he clearly had said "he dislikes my format", then I'd be more than fine, but he insisted on my computer wrong, so my viewership and edits being "disruptive". I'd recommend you to be familiar with FPC more because providing "better presentation" is also a responsibility of nominators. However, since Ottava Rima stared the disruptive behavior and continued so, the report is warranted. Also on DYK areas, I've seen the "same behavior" of Ottava, so I would more give a credit to others' assessment on Ottava Rima.--04:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • This row seems to be about the layout of the illustrations. Under OR's arrangement, I'm seeing 2 per row, and they fit my screen, which is 1024 x 768. Under CB's arrangement, I have to scroll to the right. That would indicate that OR's arrangement is better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Caspian was trying to make the vertical size of the nom smaller, so it didn't take up so much space on the WP:FPC page. He was aiming to make a positive impact, but it didn't work out because you then have to scroll horizontally. It's really not a big deal. wadester16 04:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea this does come down to a misunderstanding (row ≠ column), and is quite petty. Not really a problem if you both can agree to just walk away from it, which is what I would suggest (for the betterment of the project? ). One user tried to "fix" a problem, and it didn't really work out well. Good faith says thanks but no thanks. Oh well, shit happens. I still think a good compromise would be to use <gallery>...</gallery>; it would keep the size of the nom reasonable and easy to follow. Now I would suggest everyone goes along and does something productive. Buenos noches. wadester16 04:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The gallery approach would seem to be better, seeing as how this involves 10 large illustrations. If they want to show them larger, though, OR's approach is better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but all FPCs must be reviewed at full resolution. It really doesn't matter what size the images are on the nom page; you have to click it to review it. wadester16 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• At wadester, thank you for the input and thoughtful meditation. I assumed Ottava Rima would not prefer using <gallery> over his own format and image reducing, so I tried to let the image size as it is and to make a flow by using a table and complex hidden tags. The literary work is non-sense poem, so I thought "strict numbering of the images" is not really demanded. My computer screens are at default fixed in 1280 x 800 pixel, and I asked him a screen size, but I rather got uncivil responses in return. If Ottava's computer is fixed in smaller size, his viewing would be different than mine. Anyway, I rather would like to choose "disengagement" since our mentality is so different.--Caspian blue 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Right: misunderstanding. Now, everybody... walk away slowly and no one gets hurt! :-) wadester16 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Snowded

This user has been of concern on both Wikipedia's article for Anglophobia and the article's talk page. In enforcing his own personal opinions, he has violated Wikipedia's WP:NPA policy as well as Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. He has taken it upon himself to try and make the Anglophobia article his own personal soapbox for relations between England and Wales, and has frequently clashed with the main editor of the Anglophobia article, BillMasen.

Both I and BillMasen have attempted to placate Snowded, but to no avail, and his attitude has irritated me to the point where I now feel that action must be taken to put him back in line. Crablogger (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Put him back in line"? You're looking for punishment? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

personal attack diffs please? we can't do anything about content disputes, if this rooted in a dispute about neutrality try a rfc or third comment and then mediation if necessary. --neon white talk 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Sceptical Chymist

I'm under the impression that User:The Sceptical Chymist has been previously reported here (or perhaps to ANI) for uncivil and unwelcoming comments much like these recent ones:

• "Please return to RL to your NIH or wherever you work and boss people around over there."
• "Here we go again denying evident facts and obscuring them by WP:TLDR."

These particular comments are in the context of the content dispute at Benzodiazepine, but discouraging participation by other editors and insulting editors does not really help us resolve the dispute. I'm not convinced that the behavior is pervasive enough to justify an RfC/User, but I would be happy to hear other opinions on the matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that WhatamIdoing cannot claim moral high ground here. Her participation in the dispute at benzodiazepine has not been productive. She limited herself mostly to criticizing other editors. In response to my suggestion to help with content [66] she refused to help and refused to even appear fair.[67] In the same comment she described me, without any provocation, as playing "a childish "even-Steven" games, chided me for not "doing a stellar job of working on content" (remember, while refusing to help) and for behaving "worse when you don't feel like a "parent" or "teacher" is looking over your shoulders to make sure that you're doing your work". The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when one uses the handy-dandy search box at the top of either WP:WQA or WP:ANI, one can find out that they were never brought here to WQA, and were the actual filer of an incident at ANI. Please have a look at the results of that ANI, and both parties should continue having learned. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:NRen2k5 is a bully

[edit] Abuse of template?