Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise you are being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such language isn't considered rude. As far as being incompetent... I don't know what to say. I'm not familiar with the particular case, and I don't wish to get involved really, but from the way you described it, it certainly seems contrary to policy. Whether or not you are incompetent is entirely irrelevant. Users should engage in civil structured debate with one another and provide sources to back up each point as neessary. Ideally, the second person should be entirely absent from such discussions. There is no need to refer to the other person(s) with whom you are debating, since you are debating the topic and arguing each point on its own merits, NOT arguing against the person by their particular attributes. Having said that, I would like to reiterate that I am not familiar with this case. I would also like to say that people in positions of authority within the structure of Wikimedia are allowed to get away with a lot of crap. Usually, though, they earn it by doing lots of good stuff so that people are willing to give them a bit of leeway. In a RFA vote, it was once said by a bureaucrat that my reason for opposing was invalid and that my vote could be discounted. That in and of itself is not concerning, but said person also basically called me an idiot. He did apologise eventually, but he (and many others in positions of power) still have the same hostile and disrespectful approach. However, Wikipedia in general does tend to attract the more socially inept of society, for reasons that probably don't need to be stated explicitly. Take a look at the Wikipedia facebook, do these look like people who would have been the "popular kids" in high school? No, looking at it I get the image that we are all a bunch of societal rejects. Wikipedia has more men than women, (I believe) more liberals than conservatives... and we tend to attract people who are very passionate about their areas of interest, and if you have ever been in a nerd argument, you know how seemingly ridiculous topics (viz Gdansk vs Danzig) can make for very heated arguments which can break down into shouting matches. The same thing sometimes happens in academia. Adults can get even nastier when they're arguing about their "serious" topics than teenagers can when they're arguing about their hobbies. Mark On 11/11/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.