Please review the discussion at the following link: User_talk:I_need_a_name#SFS_P-w401_ion_maneuvering_jet. In summary, I attempted to move an article that had been inappropriately (in my opinion) redirected. It had been redirected before, and I had made a valid case to undo that instance. This time, however, using the move feature or the undo feature was unsuccessful - possibly because the redirect page now already existed under the target name. Therefore, having used up all of the options I thought I had, I merely switched the texts of the articles and explained the move in the talk pages. User:I need a name then proceeded to revert my changes and flag the main article with speedy deletion. I explained the reason I had trouble with conventional the reversion attempts, and undid his changes. Ignoring my responses except a minor comment in the edit summaries as he continued reverting, I finally got the following response on his talk page:

This page, SFS P-w401 ion maneuvering jet, keeps being moved without just reason. It needs to stop. Other pages that follow this precedent are: SFS-204 sublight ion engine, SFS-CR27200 hypermatter reactor, SFS S/ig-37 hyperdrive. Gethralkin 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I could not undo the move done on it because the other page existed. That is why I switched the texts. Gethralkin 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you not paying attention? Read the talk page. Read your messages. Gethralkin 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck which is the correct name or not. What I give a fuck about is when people manage to fail at the mind-numbingly simple task of clicking a button marked 'move' to move a page and instead copy and paste it to a new name, so we end up with bullshit like an article history's being lost in the edit history of a redirect. Already an article at the name you want to move to? Then tag it for deletion and move it when it's been deleted. Not that this was a problem to begin with anyway, because the MediaWiki software allows you to move an article over another one which redirects to it if the latter hasn't been edited since, which was the case here. Of course, that can't be done now, since someone went and edited the redirect article, hence why I've tagged it for deletion so it can be moved properly. I wonder whose fault that is? -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, learn what the word 'vandalism' means. Hint: it doesn't mean any and all edits that you disagree with. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The result was that the article was in fact adjusted properly by him. Ironically, if he had been civil in the first place, I would have agreed with his point of view and advice. I am a rather easy-going guy and can take constructive criticism pretty well. However, this was anything but constructive. Using flaming language and vulgarity, User:I need a name has broken the code-of-conduct by:

  1. Rudeness
  2. Insults and name-calling
  3. Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
  4. Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
  5. Use of condescending language towards another User
  • I see no insults or name-calling. There's no regulation against "gross profanity" on Wookieepedia as long as it's not directed against another user, which in this case it's not. Could the situation have been handled with more civility? Sure. Most situations can always be handled with a little more civility. That said, it's a royal headache for admins and experienced users when uninformed people attempt to clumsily bludgeon MediaWiki without knowing what they're doing. On that note, you could have stopped constantly reverting and either asked INAN or another user how to do it, or asked them to handle it properly instead of self-righteously insisting you were correct. INAN was civil the first few times and even linked you to a help page. I'll leave him a reminder to be a little more considerate of the newbies in the future, but this really is Not Worth Getting Upset Over. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies concerning the code-of-conduct. I was under the impression that the link that starwars.wikia gave concerning code-of-conduct resolutions pertained to this site as well. Perhaps that link needs to be changed so as not to be misleading. As far as the use of profanity, however, it still seems that, although he was abiding by the letter of the Wookieepedia policy concerning "no personal attacks", he still violated its underlying principles. I will be satisfied, however, with the council you suggested. Gethralkin 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Nah, the Wikipedia provisions are good advice and general guidelines to follow, but do not constitute any form of policy on Wookieepedia. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)