Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson


 * Closing Admin's Summary: After reading through this, it is clear that there are many users who feel that Pmanderson is frequently incivil towards other users. Many note that he does make quality contributions, but that his insults and WP:CIVIL violations are self-defeating.  There are a significant minority of commenters who appear to feel as though those criticizing Pmanderson's interaction style are being overly sensitive, or that he was provoked, or that those who started this RFC don't have "clean hands" in the matter.  However the larger number of people seem to endorse statements that would indicate that Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others.  His content contributions are usually exemplary, it would be a shame to lose those contributions because the person who makes them is unwilling to modify their behavior to avoid WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations.  No sanctions appear to be called for, other than a general awareness of the problem, so no sanctions will be enacted at this time, but the RFC/U indicates that there is a problem that needs correcting.  -- Jayron  32  05:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''Pmanderson is repeatedly attacking people and generally assumes bad faith. This makes constructive debate with him impossible.''

Desired outcome
''The best outcome is that Pmanderson stops making personal attacks and stop accusing other editors of bad faith. If he doesn't agree to do this, a probation period seems a reasonable outcome.''

Description
''Pmanderson is a frequent target of AN/I's and have been blocked for edit warring multiple times. Even though he is often factually correct, he frequently insults people, calls them names, accuses them of bad faith and doesn't engage in constrictive dialogue. In at least one case his first interaction with a user was calling him a vandal, so there needs to be no provokation or bad language on the opposite side for him to issue personal attacks.

Shell_Kinney blocked Pmanderson the 27th of May for "violating a topic ban on style guidelines and personal attacks", discussing the issue of his behavior on the talk page: He was unblocked since the page was not a style guideline, but he was asked to improve his behavior:

"'Perhaps it's worth considering that if you changed your method of interacting on policy/guideline/style pages to avoid letting your frustration show, or considered coming back to things later when you can make a less acerbic comment, you wouldn't have to be concerned about what kind of guideline a particular page is. I'm going to go ahead and unblock you, but please think about the fact that it's less the pages you're editing than the way you're interacting that's at issue here.'"

''However, his personal attacks has continued, except that they now have different targets, so clearly Shell Kinneys message wasn't accepted by Pmanderson. His latest targets are OpenFuture and Marknutley.''

Evidence by OpenFuture

 * 16 June 2010, Pmanderson starts with calling a consensus change "massive vandalism", although it was done by many people, because the article after rename was WP:COATRACK: . It's done in an edit summary, so I can't ask him to remove it.
 * 21 June, Calls me revert-warrior, and calls the WP:COATRACK fix "vandalism" again:
 * 24 June, calls me vandal:
 * 24 June, calls me vandal again, in edit summary:
 * 28 June, calls the removal of COATRACK issues "vandalism" again, after I had explained what happened and that it wasn't vandalism. Also calls me "windbag":
 * 9 July, calls me liar, claims I revert war, claims I do not understand the subject and aren't fluent in English:
 * 9 July, calls me POV-pusher:
 * 13 July, implies I'm stupid, and claims what I write is not English:
 * 14 July, calls me Open Mouth Future, implies that I'm stupid:
 * 14 July, claims of vandalism:
 * 16 July, calls me a vandal again:
 * 19 July, calls me a liar again:

Evidence by Involved Mark Nutley
User:Pmanderson has thus far called me.
 * 14 July: a liar and ignorant.
 * 14 July: A Vandal
 * 14 July: A Liar and a sockpuppet
 * 18 July: A Vandal again and removes an AFD tag while doing it.
 * 25 July: Personal attack in edit summary. I had Hat Habbed other PA`s which he reverted with this edit comment
 * 25 July: He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Wikipedia (although that seems doubtful).
 * 25 July: "His ignorance of the subject, and of the English language, are plastered all over Talk:List of wars between democracies, xo I cannot say that he is deliberately lying; I see no evidence that he would know synthesis if he fell over it. "

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NPA
 * WP:UNCIVIL
 * WP:AGF

User:OpenFutures attempts

 * 16 June: After Pmanderson called me a vandal I explained that it wasn't vandalism here: . He continued calling me a vandal, and after asking him to stop, the insults if anything increased, as seen by the list above.
 * 9 July 2010: I made a Wikiquette_alerts, diff: . It had no effect and got no admin answer. Was recommended by other user to go to ANI.
 * 14 July 2010: Created ANI. Diff: . Was recommended to go to Mediation, which was obviously wrong.
 * 18 July 2010: Went to mediation anyway, but this was closed because it was evidently not an issue for MedCab. I was also (after starting the MedCab issue) recommended to make an RFC, so here it is.
 * 31 July: Asking him again to please stop insulting me.
 * 2 July: Again:
 * 3 July: Again asks him nicely to stop: and.

User:Marknutleys attempts
Mark Nutley has asked him to stop, added to the earlier ANI's and notified administrators of the issue, to no avail.


 * 1) 25 July:
 * 2) 25 July:
 * 3) 26 July:

====Weaponbb7 attempts==== After a Request for WP:3O PMAnderson made several allegations of Sock puppetry against Nutley and Open Future, I advised at ANI for him to make apologies as far as i can tell he made none. ANI advice is here. IMHO throwing the term sock puppet with out at least attempting to compare edit histories is very bad behavior. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
The insults are continuing. After the creation of the RfC he seemed to calm a bit, but that was temporary.


 * 2 Aug 2010: Calls me a liar and a fraud: (go to bottom)
 * 3 Aug 2010: Calls me a liar: and adds some other insults as well:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)



Other users who endorse this summary

 * Pmanderson’s persistent lack of apologizing for this sort of stuff underlies his persistently doing it. Greg L (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HWV258 . 11:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's some serious issues with civility.  Them From  Space  13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear incivility in edit summaries to be sure. Collect (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear issues with incivility. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant civility problem. Minor4th  23:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Clearly is unwilling or unable to collaborate civilly with others. Reyk  YO!  02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson continues to have serious ongoing incivility issues. Full disclosure: I had a serious and very similar set of civility issues with PMA that dragged on for months and which soured me on editing wikipedia for a long time. PMAnderson has repeatedly refused to act civilly, or to allow changes with which he personally disagrees, regardless of wikipedia's policies (the two issues usually come as a pair with him). I would also point out that, even now, as PMAnerson is under a 48-hour incivility ban, he is still insulting OpenFuture, the editor who created this RFC, on his talk page by insinuating that OpenFuture is "unintelligent" and "uneducated". PMAnderson is adamantly and unrepentantly uncivil, and edits and comments in a fashion that runs counter to both the spirit and the official guidelines of Wikipedia; if nothing else, I would like that fact recorded here. AdRem (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, his implying that he doesn't believe me to be intelligent or educated was prompted by me asking him for a clearn break, and to listen to what I say, because I think he'll find that we are both intelligent educated people with a lot of interest. So in context, that last part wasn't really in insult. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

This is the complaint of two editors whose only contributions to List of wars between democracies are to remove entries with which they disagree. Their fundamental complaint is that I have regarded persistent reversion of sourced material as vandalism;I am not alone.


 * Removals of sourced material by OpenFuture:
 * 16:43 18 June,
 * 17:21,
 * 17:43,
 * 21 June 04:13,
 * 09:14,
 * 10:18,
 * 23 June 16:23,
 * 24 June 07:42,
 * 27 June 05:42,
 * 28 June 04:23.. and so on.


 * Removals of sourced material by mark nutley:
 * 21:17 14 July,
 * 21:19,
 * 21:21,
 * 21:36


 * At this point the page was protected. Mark Nutley then put the article up for AfD; where it was kept. After the protection lapsed, he continued to remove sourced material, citing no contrary source whatever, merely his own somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of the subject: Greeks had no democracys [sic] and that the United States had no elections before 1789.


 * 09:28 17 July
 * 12;27
 * 12:29
 * 12:30
 * 21:11


 * Since I had only seen them collaborating, and since they share not only an ideology and a favorite website, but several peculiarities in their English, I had suspected them to be sockpuppets; but it has been pointed out that these are the only articles they collaborate on, so they probably aren't. So be it.


 * Addendum: I see they quote Shell Kinney. What they do not bother to say is that he posted that more two months ago, about a completely different subject, while he unblocked me.


 * This is typical of their methods, both about Wikipedia and about the real world. So are the missing apostrophes; in my country, truth is a defense. Were I defending my English, I would type more carefully. Similarly, this list of rough language by OpenFuture is more savage than anything I have said to either of them. Similarly, mark nutley has attempted to delete a page full of evidence for the ArbCom case in which he is currently involved.


 * It may depend on whose ox is gored; or all this may be a device in a content dispute. Only OpenFuture knows for sure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apology: Since editors I respect so advise, I must agree: I should have found a less unparliamentary expression than "semi-literate ignoramus"; and I'm sorry I did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Query: Can someone find an adequate, but parliamentary, description of this edit, which adds or amd synth tags to an assertion with a single source? It follows a source, so it's not original; it follows one source, so what is it synthesizing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by The Four Deuces
Both mark nutley and OpenFuture hold strong views on a variety of topics, including global warming and cold war theories on democracy and communism, and have come into conflict with some other editors over sourcing and edits. In fairness these are controversial articles. However I have found no problems with Pmanderson, and believe that content dispute resolution would be more appropriate. OpenFuture himself has made many comments which in my opinion far exceed anything that Pmanderson has written, and can be seen in the WQA archive 88.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) TFD (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) LK (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Snowded TALK  15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Pot calling the kettle black -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through mark nutley's edits that led to Pmanderson's edits about which he has complained, I find a clear pattern of removing text without consensus, failure to provide sources to support his edits, and a poor collegial approach to other editors. This style bears all the characteristics of civil POV pushing. "These are editors who are superficially polite" while editing a limited number of articles, pushing minority opinions, revert-warring and launching numerous frivolous RfCs, etc. Here are examples of his edits preceding Pmanderson's:
 * without discussion, removes sourced text with claim that the "Yankee-Pennamite Wars not a war between democraticly elected governments". The text removed referred to the Pennamite-Yankee War 1784 which was a war three elected state governments.
 * provides personal opinions for challenging the listing of wars between democracies, but does not provide sources for these opinions
 * deletes majority of article, without consensus, and lists for deletion.
 * replies to a comment by Pmanderson, but after replies from him and me hides the discussion with the notation, "hat off topic PA`s" (note the plural).
 * replies to other editors in uncollegial terms:
 * [to User:Polargeo] Whom are you calling a "Nutcase"?
 * [to User: William M. Connolley] Blame me for what?
 * [to User:Nigelj Nigel, do you actually know what the scientific method is? Scientific method feel free to refresh your memory
 * [to Kim D. Petersen] It stuns me that you have kept three editors arguing with you for hours over this, content which is obviously undue and not fit for a blp.
 * [about User:ChrisO] ChrisO had already agreed on the talk page that this was grossly undue, yet puts it into this BLP even though all the discussion on the talk page was against it.... Christ Almighty, this has to stop

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) TFD (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Snowded TALK  17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)  strong endorse, having recently encountered the way in which Mark Nutley and OpenFuture operate in tandem [Mass killings under Communist regimes here] as well as the article under discussion we have a clear case of WP:PUSH.  Pmanderson's reaction has to be judged within the context of the editing environment created by that behaviour
 * 3) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC) OpenFuture's continued attempts to rewrite the original research policy (his latest claim is that identifying the view of the majority of scholars is original research ) is enough to drive one to drink.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Cynwolfe
I've been aware of Pmanderson's work for a year or two and have participated in many discussions with him. We have disagreed at times. The discussions have always been productive, never crossed the line into pointless hostility, and have served to improve the articles. I've never known him to push a POV or to be motivated by anything other than a commitment to disinterested scholarship. He has the courage of his convictions, but he is not habitually obstructionist. I've seen him simply drop an argument, or admit he's wrong, or even utter the word "sorry." He participates in consensus-building. He grows quickly impatient with the forms of discourse described in the WP:CPUSH essay, especially when other participants seek to block content without demonstrating knowledge of the subject matter and the pertinent scholarship. This is hardly detrimental to producing good-quality articles. His tart language and intense rhetoric can be self-defeating, but should be taken in the context of his contributions as whole, which are many and intelligent. I profoundly dislike the idea that WP:CIV can be used as a tactic to stifle vigorous debate.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cynwolfe (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Sayerslle (talk)
 * 3) LK (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Snowded  TALK  15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Bali ultimate (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC) particularly the comments about civ.  I disagree with OpenFuture's interpretation of OR and SYN, which I think are wrong. According to him, simply saying this constitutes a personal attack.
 * 10) Wareh (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Haploidavey
I applaud Pmanderson's commitment to accurate, balanced content in the articles he edits. His language is habitually terse, expressive and to the point. He's exceptionally well-informed: that might well have come about because he's prepared to learn – in other words, he's prepared to acknowledge his own error and ignorance – which is not, by the way, a dirty word. He sure ain't oily. His dry, intemperate, sometimes acidic wit can be construed as offensive; maybe it's meant to be, maybe not – why would one be inclined to seek out offense? His edits to a particularly long and complex article I'd worked on (and foolishly cherished as "mine" for over a year) completely disturbed me. They were quite drastic, initially painful, then challenging and at last invaluable. Had I doubted his good faith and refused his changes with insistent re-iterations, suspicions of his motives and demands for sources to which I had personal access, I'd have earned the same kind of responses. Having said that, I think the offended parties here have given as good – sometimes "better" (?) than they've received: "whose bull is being gored?" seems apposite. Please, it's just editing. I suggest the complainants get used to that, down axes, faggots or whatever retribution they have in mind for insults imagined or real and divert their energies to the development of article content – which actually seemed to be going somewhere until this personal injuries business was brought up.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Haploidavey (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) BigK HeX (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) LK (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Bali ultimate (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Active Banana
Having had a few interminable "discussions" with User:Marknutley, I can see how someone could be brought to the end of their rope and snap (I believe that I did!). However, calling someone "semi-literate ignoramus" is really inappropriate and I would like to see User:Pmanderson make an apology. I have not looked further into Pmanderson's history nor into the interactions that led to that snap to have further opinion.Active Banana (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited to add: But as another editor has pointed out, an apology is only as good as the intent behind it and in the inappropriate actions not being repeated in the future. Active Banana (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Calling someone a moron isnt apparently something Marknutly considers an inappropriate personal attack
 * Above comment striken per:

I am too involved with other editors involved in this mess to have an objective opinion. Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Active Banana

Semi-outside view by Weaponbb7
Having been part of WP:3O with the two editors, I feel compelled to make a statement. neither Pmanderson or Mark Nutley have clean hands. I also see that others side that PmAnderson has made valuable contributions as referenced by Haploidavey makes the argument that Pmanderson makes "commitment to accurate, balanced content in the articles he edits." Cynwolfe also makes a similar argument and speaks well of his behavior in other conflicts. I dispute neither their assertions in fact i am glad to hear of it. My only statement is that in the recent disagreement Pmanderson crossed the line or it least stuck his toe over a couple of times. I am sure a simlair RFC on mark nutley would probably show a simliar pattern. I do not think any action is needed here but a good stern warning or Probation period at most. We often forget that just because a user makes a lot of good edits their civility issues should not be overlooked User:Georgewilliamherbert made probably the most important comment in the ANI thread

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) mark nutley (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Probation warning seems reasonable. - OpenFuture (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Probation and warning seem reasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) That’s seems a reasonable step to further protect the community from further disruption. Greg L (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Concur with probation.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Per above.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Teeninvestor
Overall, I think Pmanderson is an editor with good faith and a strong belief in wikipedia. However, he is a very difficult editor to work with. When arguing with other editors, he often launches personal attacks against editors he deem as "POV-pushing" and can be extremely difficult and obstructionist. Once he believes another editor is wrong, he seems to be unable to regard their perspective with any more validity whatsoever and becomes very uncivil and repeatedly attacks other editors' work and character. This has gotten him into repeated disputes, in which he was blocked several times. As for diffs, see here 1, 2 and 3. I believe that this editor's contributions would be vastly more valuable if he learns how to respect other editors' views and work collaboratively, and if he followed the policy of WP:AGF. Although I actually lean towards Pmanderson on the content dispute, his treatment of other editors in this case presents clear issues.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * Teeninvestor (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg L (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Epeefleche
Editors of long-standing are, of course, valued. But they should be especially on guard, inasmuch as they know the rules, as to what behavior is inappropriate. Attempts to pooh-pooh such behavior in the past seem not to have been sufficiently effective. IMHO we should not turn Nelson's eye to the matter, as that seems perhaps unlikely to be helpful in addressing the behavior detailed above.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg L (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert
Civility is important on Wikipedia, independently of factual or policy concerns here. This case brings us an excellent example of some of the reasons why.

When one editor insults another, even if the editor issuing the insult is 100% right on Wikipedia policy or underlying facts in dispute, it often causes an emotional response in the insulted editor. The insulted editor may leave the project, or reduce their participation, in which case we may have lost a valuable contributor for no good reason.

Alternately, as happened in this case, the insulted editor may then feel empowered by the insult to demand action against the insulting editor. This often leads to energetic ANI cases, loss of perspective by the insulted editor, etc. It is often very difficult to try and defuse the insulted editors' response, as they're angry about the insult.

Because of these common reactions, insults often make it much harder for involved parties or uninvolved parties or administrators to actually address the underlying policy or content issue, and work with the parties to resolve problems. This case was clearly a demonstration of this effect.

It's good to see that PMAnderson has now acknowledged that their comment that seems to have sparked this was inappropriate and apologized for it.

PMAnderson should work more diligently to avoid insults in the future. They are counterproductive in resolving disputes, and can cause major problems for the Wikipedia community. He has had a problem with using insults more freely than most other users in the past. If this continues the administrator community may have to respond with more significant sanctions. Hopefully this RFC will help establish the importance of not continuing the behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Teeninvestor (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Haploidavey (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Collect (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Bishonen | talk 01:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC).
 * 9) Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Martin (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  Them  From  Space  10:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Concur, with the idea of some sort of civility probation or parole being appropriate.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) WGFinley (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) There is no excuse or justification for incivility and personal attacks, ever. People who continue to engage in them need to be shown the door, no matter their merits as editors.  Sandstein   15:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) -- Snowded TALK  05:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)  Although the level of provocation should be taken into account - agree with driven to drink
 * 18) I think little leeway should be given to this editor in the future if the behavior is not corrected. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Jafeluv (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by ChrisO

 * NOTE: this was originally placed as an endorsement of Outside_view_by_Georgewilliamherbert. Based on concerns noted  on the talk page, User:Weaponbb7 converted ChrisO's comment to be a separate Outside View   hatnote placed by Active Banana (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 

I agree with Georgewilliamherbert in general terms, but I think it's also very clear from the diffs highlighted by PMAnderson that there are very serious problems with Marknutley's edits as well - specifically, I'm sorry to say, an absolutely abysmal knowledge of history. I can understand why PMAnderson might get frustrated at having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level. I think it would not be unreasonable to raise an RfC on Marknutley's editing to address these problems. ChrisO (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(To clarify, since I've been questioned about this: my comments relate to some of the diffs that Pmanderson posted, especially this one in which MN asserts that "The Greek city states were not democracys [sic]." Honestly, the mind boggles - who does he think invented the concept of democracy, and where does he think the word came from? You would think that someone who wants to edit an article called List of wars between democracies would actually have some idea of history and (even if he doesn't know all the details) would be sufficiently motivated to open an encyclopedia - heck, even look it up on Wikipedia - and get the facts. This is extreme incompetence, both in terms of a lack of knowledge and also in terms of an apparent intellectual laziness in not being willing to look up a basic fact that a high school kid should know. Remember the sword-skeleton theory? "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War — and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge — get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." This is basically what is going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- ChrisO (talk)
 * 2) (more for the comments about Marknutley than anything else) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Situation much more clarified, Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) nevermind Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) BigK HeX (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Viva Randy!Bali ultimate (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Snowded  TALK  11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)  provocation and unreasonable behaviour is a significant factor in this case
 * 7) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC): Endorse, while acknowledging that PMA's conduct is at issue, not that of any other editor; however, I invite those who want "to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" (per WP:CIV) to contribute at Talk:List of wars between democracies. Dispassionate voices are needed.
 * 9) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.