User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: Subst either {{subst:mfd}} OR {{subst:mfdx|2nd}} into the page nominated for deletion.
Then subst {{subst:mfd2|pg=User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame|text=...}} into the newly created subpage.
Finally, subst {{subst:mfd3|pg=User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame}} into the log.
Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).


  1. [1]: Stating that someone POV pushing is violating CIVIL, from someone who specializes in racist edits.
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum an attack on an admin for daring to state that someone had voted in the wrong place at an RfA, and when chastised for it, said he "didn't give a monkeys what X thought".
  3. [2] Telling someone to put up or shut up is grounds for a 72 hour block.[3]
  4. [4] Saying someone does not know what they are talking about is a lack of AGF and is a blockable offense. [5]
  5. [6] Saying someone had problems with reading comprehension was a blockable offense under WP:CIVIL as a personal attack, and resulted in a block: [7]
  6. [8] stating someone's arguments are boneheaded, even when followed by an apology for any offense, was judged a blockable offense [9] When an admin does something similar, all suggestion that this is over the line is rejected of course: [10]
  7. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished_User alleged that the phrase "homemopathy promoter" was WP:CIVIL and a sanctionable offense. Several editors and admins agreed with this position.
  8. Stating that there is bad grammar and spelling present, without saying who it is due to [11] is claimed to be a personal attack: [12] F1
  9. Stating: "Learn a bit instead of listening to some babbling preacher who just wants to pick your pocket and make you stupid" is claimed to be a violation of WP:CIVIL [13] F2
  10. Calling someone who is a repeated champion of paranormal causes and is a member of the paranormal project on WP a paranormal proponent: [14] is claimed to be an insult: [15] F3
  11. Interestingly, there are calls out to desysop a large group of admins for their participation in April Fool's Day. I answered this here. I do not think it is particularly reasonable.
  12. [16] Calling someone a "racist" who is promoting the Klu Klux Klan and cross burning and involved in whitewashing the KKK article and protecting pro-KKK editors is judged "unCIVIL", resulting in a block.
  13. [17] is an example of an unhappy user who uses CIVIL as a weapon, but engages in unCIVIL behavior himself:[18][19] And the main issue? That WP was not allowed to use as a reference a negative review of a book, since a negative review reflected bad on the author, and therefore was a BLP problem. And this unhappy user was prepared to bring this issue to 2 different noticeboards and 2 different talk pages, demanding that other editors produce evidence for him, then dismissing whatever evidence was presented and challenging them to produce more. Within a day, 10 other editors had politely told him he was mistaken, and all that happened was he increased his disruption and agitation. F4
  14. [20] Someone who has crossed swords with an admin over promoting "pro-pedophilia activism" on WP charges the admin with supposedly inappropriate unCIVIL behavior of stating "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour".
  15. Pointing out that some have been blocked for similar behavior: [21] is viewed as a sanctionable offense: [22]
  16. [23] An editor was blocked for telling someone to "get lost" on his own talk page.
  17. [24] It is claimed that a description of why it is inadvisable to remove sources for reasons of aesthetics in controversial articles, ending with the admonishment to "Just learn a bit" is "is incivil, condescending, and bullying." F5
  18. [25] Editor blocked for false accusations of vandalism and saying someone was trolling.
  19. [26] Stating "one puppy's opinion" is claimed to be a personal attack.
  20. Claim that edit summaries with "don't be too silly" and "stop POV pushing" are uncivil [27]
  21. Claim that writing in caps, with a bold font, and use of the word "irrelevant" is uncivil [28] F6
  22. Claim that calling someone "silly" in an edit summary is uncivil [29]
  23. Removing a category from AIDS Denialism with the edit summary that it is not as repulsive as Astrology is deemed uncivil [30]
  24. Stating someone's repeated argument is nonsense is discouraged as uncivil [31] F7
  25. Jimbo claims that "self promoting" is a personal attack and is sanctionable [32]

[edit] The opposite problem

  1. Suggesting or implying that someone is a "f_ckwit" in the course of an extremely disruptive conversation with an admin present who seems to encourage the conversation rather than discourage it: [33]. An editor learns of this and reports it about 40 hours later at AN/I: [34] after first learning of it. Amazingly, a contentious discussion ensues about whether it is permissable to use this term or not, and there is edit warring to keep the offensive term in the original thread and use the offensive term in at least one other place. It takes over 30 hours before finally the person is cautioned by an uninvolved admin: [35].