Revision as of 01:16, 16 July 2008

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war

I wonder if someone could take a look at this please. There's an edit war going on over a fairly trivial yes/no point, and it has degenerated to very uncivil comments. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the situation, I can't seem to find an answer anywhere, meanwhile the two editors in question are at it hammer and tongs. A resolution and/or a blocking would be very welcome. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that, after weeks of revert warring, this was being addressed by an admin while I typed the above post. Coincidence of the week! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The admin's actions aside, the fundamental matter has not been addressed and no solution has been found. The main question is whether the lyrics were proper content for the article. The secondary issue involves the behavior of the anonymous editor, who used multiple IPs to evade blocks and continue to engage in disruptive editing and personal attacks. Clearly, said behavior is inappropriate and cannot be permitted. Said anonymous editor has not made a case for the inclusion of the questioned content, and other editors have, in the edit history, made a case against same. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is the point I am struggling with - if there's any actual dispute there at all, it requires someone with a knowledge of fair use etc and whether or not the lyrics are considered essential to the article. The second point you raise, that of the behaviour of the IP editor, is a no-brainer - his remarks and general behaviour are totally unacceptable. Plus, if his is the only voice for the inclusion of the disputed content, I'd venture to suggest his voice be ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this at Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war. To cut to the chase, I'd say the Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources is the main guideline to consider. The actual behaviour is unquestionably out: e.g. the repeated block-evading IP socks; this ; and the clear history of 74.230.99.202 pursuing RepublicanJacobite across unconnected topics with false accusations of vandalism . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note further personal attacks from another IP sock 70.152.204.190 (talk · contribs) - , , . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, I saw this being handled at ANI a few days ago. (That "creative" twist on RJ's name is not something one forgets easily :/ ) In either case, the IP's behavior is obviously unacceptable, but there's not much we can do at WQA to deal with block-evading IP socks. Hopefully this was worked out at ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Skoojal

The problem I am having is that User:Skoojal is using inappropriate pronouns to describe me; ze is referring to me with female pronouns despite my request that ze stop.

At 23:22, 8 July 2008, I requested that Skoojal stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. At 23:33, 8 July 2008 (eleven minutes later), Skoojal used a female pronoun to describe me, blatantly defying my request. I find this action patently hostile and inflammatory.

It is as inappropriate for Skoojal to make an unfounded claim that I am a certain gender, as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim that I am a member of a certain religion. I would like to request that someone step in to make this distinct to Skoojal to avoid having to seek disciplinary action against this user. Whistling42 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I got your gender wrong, I got your gender wrong. So what? That's a mistake on my part, but it's not hostile. Skoojal (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Skoojal of this thread. Hopefully he or she will honor your request. In fairness, he or she may not have noticed your initial request (it was part of another remark and could have been glossed over) so it was not necessarily a "patently hostile and infallmmatory" action on his or her part.

Incidentally, I have a question about this "ze" business. When you said, "...as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim...", you used "ze" as the object pronoun -- I thought it was only meant to be a subject pronoun? Shouldn't it be "zim" or "zer" or something if it is the object pronoun? Not to get off topic here, but if this artificial ungendered pronoun doesn't distinguish between grammatical subject and grammatical object, it creates more problems than it solves IMO... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so, apparently Whistling42 objects to the use of the English language, as per here. I don't wish to make a federal case out of this, so my recommendation would be to never refer to Whistling42 using pronouns. This is English Misplaced Pages, and despite what Whistling42 may believe, there is no such word in the English language as "ze", and I am not going to start using a made-up word, nor am I going to ask anyone else to do so. I am marking this thread as resolved, since there is no reasonable request being made here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jay. We certainly have some control over what people will refer to us as that will fit into regular bounds of civility, at the same time, it's simply impossible and unreasonable to refuse not only he and she but also "he or she" and tell people to use a made up word. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of weird for me to be in this position, because I'm actually kind of a stickler about avoiding gender-specific pronouns when I am not sure about the person's gender. I use "he or she" all the time, and in situations where it is appropriate and where "he or she" would be too awkward, I even user the singular "they".

It is quite unfortunate that English does not have a gender-neutral single pronoun (other than "it", which of course is quite insulting when used for a living being). I don't even necessarily object to someone taking it upon themselves to try and propagate the user of a made-up gender-neutral pronoun such as "ze" -- after all, that's how language changes, right? If "ze" were to appear in enough published texts, it could officially enter the language one day, and in theory that's all fine.

But I for one think "ze" sounds forced and artificial, even though I support the concept of a gender-neutral pronoun in theory. So I'm not going to use the word "ze," and it's not reasonable to ask other editors to do so either. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand: it is absolutely inappropriate to use "he or she" to describe a person who has specifically requested not to be referred to as "she" or as "he". If a person refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns on the grounds that they are neologisms, and if they refuse to use singular they due to a belief that it is grammatically incorrect, the only civil option is to refrain from using pronouns altogether. Whistling42 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I normally do not like to argue about such things, but since I am already involved I'll respond. "Absolutely inappropriate" is in your view, there is no hard and fast rule saying using he-or-she is incivil, offensive, inappropriate. I'm not going to get on your case for having an opinion on the matter, even if it is a minority one. I will say that while it is certainly your right to have a problem with such usage, it does not mean that the Misplaced Pages community or internet users in general will comply. In my humble opinion, they aren't being rude or unreasonable, but it appears we disagree on that point. I generally default to "he" on the internet, if I am corrected then I switch to "she". I have never in my memory seen anyone offended by this, even those that choose to stay 100% gender neutral in their online identity haven't complained to me. I believe the reason Jay originally said "wow", which I basically agreed with, is because the request you made didn't seem realistic and will prove to be problematic if insisted upon. In the end, you and I will disagree on considering such usages as uncivil, but it will never be my personal intent to offend you and I will likely go out of my way not to refer to your "gender", though it is totally improbably that the entire community will respond to such a request, and I hope you understand that and it won't continue to create issues with interactions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to echo the portion of Gwynand's comment where he or she promised to personally try to abide by your request. I will do so also. I just don't think you are going to have much luck getting everyone to abide by it, and I don't think the community is going to enforce your request. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I request that anyone should use "ze" to describe me. If you disagree, please provide a diff of the comment where I supposedly said such a thing. All I stated is that a user should stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. Provided that they do not use "it" or other inflammatory language, the choice is theirs. Whistling42 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ze is not just a "made-up" word but an attempt by many to find useful non-gender specific pronouns for a variety of reasons. As a default, using someones wikiname is an easy way to avoid these issues instead of making gender assumptions. Banjeboi 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is flagged as resolved, but for future reference not everyone lives in the LGBT-o-sphere, and transgendered and third-gendered editors that have special requests or requirements for people referring to them should either note that on their userpage or not get too upset when someone mistakenly refers to them in the 3rd person as he or she. -- User0529 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't need to be in the "LGBT-o-sphere" to avoid inferring gender, especially when editing articles related to ... gender and gender variation. We also should only need a civil reminder to avoid using a specific gender pronoun if it's been made clear that doing so is insulting. Simply using non-specific pronouns (they, their, etc.) or a username is all it takes. No need to try to get everyone on board to new-to-them gender terminology. Another possibility is what you just did, he or she, a perfectly reasonable alternative. University-level texts have been doing this since the 1980s so it's not a terribly new concept. Banjeboi 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject... I just want to point out that when I initially responded to this request, I said, "Ah hah, Whistling is right!" and asked Skoojal if he would please address Whistling using "he or she". I thought that was a perfectly reasonable solution, and in fact I already take care to use "he or she" when I am not sure. This only became an issue because, as Whistling said below, Whistling does not accept "he or she" either. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"He or she" is not a reasonable alternative; it enforces a binary and infers that the person identifies as one or the other, which may not be the case. Whistling42 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You will note that this issue has been listed as resolved. Your continuing to persue it is a distraction from more substantive issues. Skoojal (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cali567

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove two people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the 'trying to kill the debate by removing two people who disagree with him/her'? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you read Dúnadan's Talk page. Cali567 was clearly trying to instigate an false accusation against me, and Cali567 wanted Dúnadan to be part of this instigation. Cali567 solution to the discussion I had with him/her was clearly getting me ban from Misplaced Pages through a false accusation of Sockpuppetry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just notice that you talked to Cali567, and the reply of Cali567 still shows his/her intent. Cali567 didn't mention me, who sent this Wikiquette alert, instead he/she mentions the other user who he/she accuses me of controlling. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may, in a situation like this admins will ask for DIFFs to make it easier for them to see what's going on. Just telling them to read someone's talk page or go through their entire contributions list isn't enough direction, even if you feel like it would be obvious. It helps to show uninvolved admins exact instances of the behavior you're referring to, that'll help them quickly. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, I didn't know what DIFFs were. Okay then, here is the DIFF where Cali567 left his/her message to Dúnadan: , and here is the DIFF which Cali567 left in my talk page: . Lehoiberri (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cali has been advised and has stated that he feels he crossed the line with some of his comments. I have advised Cali that he may want to consider an WP:RFC to resolve the content dispute.

Lehoiberri, do you feel this resolves your issue? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! Cali567's response to Dayewalker (here's the DIFF:) his/her response does not mention me, just the person he/she accuses me of controlling, basically showing this user's intent. I didn't remove the study outright, like that other user did, I just removed Cali567's manipulation of the study (claiming Mestizo majority or large Mestizo population). This user has been quite rude to me, especially he/she doesn't mention me in the response. Cali567's comment in the response "Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible", so he/she does not regret trying to start a smear campaign to get me ban from wikipedia. Am I being a little overexaggerated, yes, but I not going to be harassed by a bully like Cali567. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So what would you like to see happen? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user 86.136.125.181

IP address 86.136.125.181 is constantly changing US English into UK English. Can someone take a close look? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like their changes are OK based on WP:ENGVAR. I'm not sure I see any wikiquette problems in any case. --Onorem♠Dil 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like Lycaon needs to read up on his rules before threatening to ban my IP. I'd never consider changing articles on the US, or other 'neutral' articles using US spelling to a different type of English. My edits are more to improve consistency of variety. 86.136.125.181 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max

User advised on WQA issue by Jaysweet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) McJeff has taken this to ANI --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Theserialcomma (talk · contribs)

The issue right now is that there is a disagreement on a criticism section in the article Tucker Max. User:Theserialcomma has been increasingly incivil. Accuses me of vandalism, designates various malicious motives to me. Claims to be assuming good faith but clearly isn't. His lack of civility takes the form of long, rambling posts that briefly address the subject matter in dispute and then attack both my motives and me personally.

User has also been re-adding the disputed criticism section that I (and others) have been removing via WP:BLP, and calling it vandalism. . Also leaving harassing messages on my talk page .

I've tried both reasoning with him and being firm, but neither has worked. Theserialcomma is a new editor and I believe he simply doesn't know better, which is why I posted this here instead of at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the message in your talk page was "harassing", but you are right that Theserialcomma seems to be having a little trouble grasping WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL, etc. (Although I haven't looked really carefully yet, so it's possible Theserialcomma is right) I will advise Theserialcomma to try harder to assume good faith, and caution them about throwing around the V-word in situations where it is inappropriate (even if we assume TSC's additions are valid, your removal is clearly not intended as "vandalism," so that word is not correct or helpful here). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

for over 3 weeks i've been trying to add the criticism section under the consensus that a criticism section is warranted. i stated repeatedly that if the content added to the section is under dispute, it should be edited and made more acceptable, but not removed completely. everytime i added the criticism section though, mcjeff deleted the entire thing. while i admit to accusing mcjeff of vandalism, i meant it was vandalism in the sense that he was deleting an entire section instead of editing it to make it acceptable. he agreed it should be there, yet kept reverting its existence for around 3 weeks straight. if this is an improper use of the word vandalism, then i apologise. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This incident has been upgraded to an AN/I which can be found here. McJeff (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming WQA issues are sorted. If not, 'stuck' tag should be left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User PainMan

• PainMan (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Just leaving a heads up that I have warned PainMan (talk · contribs) for continued hostility and incivility. I won't bother to detail all of the violations here, but a quick browse through his contribution history (especially in the User Talk namespace) will give a good indication of my concerns. Comments from additional editors might be helpful. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi

User:Romaioi was identified as a potential sock puppet of Generalmesse, as required User:noclador informed of this and explained the checkuser process on his talk page. The checkuser proved to be negative, although all the other sock puppet suspects proved to be correct. Unfortunately User:Romaioi has taken this extremely personally and in his defence, launched a series of personal attacks against User:noclador. As a result after explaining the checkuser process User:noclador has chosen to disengage with this editor, see . I have attempted to smooth things over but User:Romaioi has seen fit to publish further personal attacks on his talk page. Discussion over the sock puppet accusation have been moved to an archive page User talk:Romaioi/Archive 1. I have urged him to withdraw the personal attacks but he is unrepentant. I can only see this escalating, would someone be able to intervene please. Justin talk 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through it first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So... incorrectly accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, withdrawing from the ongoing discussion of the accusation, then refusing to apologize for making the accusation, all that isn't uncivil, but having a certain amount of justifiable resentment over a false accusation and besmirching of one's character, that's uncivil? Interesting ethical stance.

User:noclador should go hat in hand to User:Romaioi and offer profound and sincere apologies. If things continue afterwards, then there might be a case for incivility, but until then... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for the user to return to editing prior to going any further with this - and I don't think that tone is helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that I came here with the aim of calming things before it escalated, that was not helpful. Justin talk 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlosguitar

There is a long standing debate between User:Carlosguitar, myself, and a couple of other editors at the Parkour article. It is now being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour.

Throughout this discussion I have felt constantly baited and bullied by Carlosguitar in a passive aggressive way. You can make up your mind for yourself from the links I provide below, but I feel that I have been extraordinarily patient. A neutral third party also expressed similar opinions.(here) At every stage I have attempted to compromise, for instance, letting go a point in the interests of peace when suggested by the neutral third party. Carlosguitar then responded hostilely to the neutral editor. (at the bottom)

I feel that Carlosguitar consistently used the letter of the law rather than it’s speared to try to force his views. For instance repeatedly trying to use WP:WEIGHT to justify removing the criticism section from the article (you will note that this was explicitly rejected by the neutral opinion).

He has made several accusation of being personally attacked. here for instance (4th and 5th paragraph down). Finally just recently he accused me of personally attacking him, when I got fed up with what I see as a particularly bizarre piece of logic, and expressed my opinion that he was WP:LAWYER. (Which I can back up with ample evidence if need be). He has since used this alleged attack as a weapon, while adopting an extremely insulting condescending tone with me.

There are many other problem posts.

The full discussion can be found:

• here
• here
• and here

I’m not allways perfect on talk pages, but am I’m completely unjustified in feeling attack and disrespected by these messages? Thanks for your impartial opinion. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, once something has gone to Mediation, it is already beyond what can be done here at Wikiquette Alerts. Heh, in fact when there are problems that can't be solved here, it's not uncommon for someone to say, "Try taking it to mediation."  :)

Since Vassyana has been mediating, I will ask him/her if there's any suggestion for what we can do here, but otherwise I am inclined to just refer it back there. Sorry. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet has summed up what happens (or is likely to happen) generally. However, there are a couple of things said by the both of them that have me concerned, at all points of this dispute so far (including at mediation). I honestly think S.dedalus & Carlosguitar, both, need to avoid the article (and each other). Both of you have said some things that are problematic, and are at the point where no amount of discussion or edits concerning this matter (between the both of you) will be helpful at the moment. After a period of time, a week maybe, or once a formal mediation request is accepted, you could resume. Formal mediation is definitely a good idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a generally supported opinion, I will voluntarily leave the article and discussion for whatever amount of time seems appropriate. In fact I have taken several breaks from the discussion due to frustration before. So that I can improve in the future, which of my comments do you feel are problematic Ncmvocalist? --S.dedalus (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I should've been clearer; problematic in resolving the dispute. Comments like 'i do not appreciate your depracating tone' by you or 'i don't appreciate your accusations of owning, disrupting and trolling' by carlosguitar should probably be left to user talk pages. Replying to each of those comments while discussing content on an article talk page is not going to keep discussion focussed on resolving the content dispute. While I do understand that things get heated during a dispute, sometimes, it's unavoidable that you'll need cool-down breaks so that the dispute isn't prolonged unnecessarily or ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just realized Carlosguitar was never notified of this thread. I have now done so.

Vassyana replied to me and suggested we continue the discussion here, to see if we can't work something out. The mediation discussion is frankly too long for me to have time to read the entire thing, and it is hard to comment on specifics without the full context. However, I will say this: While I don't see any horribly egregious civility problems, both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other. And just in general, you both seem really pissed ;) Which is only natural, I suppose (and in fact Vassyana commented that in some ways, this sort of bickering is "par for the course" in a topic on which both editors feel so strongly) but it doesn't really help anyone come to a better conclusion.

I would basically echo what Ncmvocalist said: Both sides would benefit from taking a deep breath/taking a step back/having a nice cup of tea. Vassyana is a good mediator, and will not be fooled by trickery or gaming the system -- so if you think the other side is engaging in shennanigans like that, so what? It won't work. The most effective way to make your case is to keep calm, state your position clearly, answer any questions the mediator might have, and try to keep a professional demeanor. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlosguitar was notified here. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I was checking the Talk page. Well, it can't hurt to ping him in both places I 'spose :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Posturewriter

There have been long-running problems over this SPA, and now this - using a Talk page as a venue for an extended personal attack and breach of WP:AGF.

• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread and advised them that the section in question may run afoul of WP:UP#NOT, entry #9. I'd like to see what his/her response is before proceeding. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

However clearly ill-informed he may be in terms of Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines and norms, I don't think the rant on his page is quite a personal attack. But I do think this is more RFC material, possibly with multiple conduct issues (but even then, you'd need to have diffs of conduct problems like edit-warring - that talk page comment on its own would probably be insufficient). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to doubt whether there will be a response so I'm tempted to tag this as stuck...but it's still very early - will give it a bit more time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He replied to me today and said he wants another day to think over what I said. So probably Wednesday night we can make a decision on how to close this. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet; I was apparently successful in the COI Number 1 discussion, and later, Gordonofcartoon started COI number 2 with a week or two of more than 5000 words of incessant criticism from him and WhatamIdoing here They just kept going relentlessly here and from 10:15 on 20-3-08 here

The volume and numerical number of tactics was so enormous that I decided to sit back and watch, and later presented my response here at 04:16 on 24-5-08 , and then Gordonofcartoon dismissed my 2500 word response 8 hours later with the words “Please cut this readable length” here , and they continued incessantly down the discussion page from the same day here and added another 7 topics of criticism. I was considering which ones to deal with on a priority basis, and in due course took my final response to the COI page but was 15 minutes late. The decision had been made without me being there.

Please advise me if I have 8 hours, or 2 weeks to respond here, so that I can time things better in this new policy matter (how many policies are there in wikipedia?) In the meantime I will add some more later to dayPosturewriter (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewrtier

User:Truthsayer62

Earlier today I submitted a group of articles under the AfD Process, and this user took offence, by removing the templates from the said articles, and now has started to edit my own user page. I'm not impressed by such activity. What do I do? (20040302 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

If his disruptive conduct stops, then that's that. If not, take it to WP:ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment on your User page, I think he just meant to put it on the User Talk page. Not sure if it was that he pressed the wrong button or if that he was unaware of the policy, but in any case I have moved the comment to your User Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's as if you read my mind; I thought the exact same thing. I went back in his contributions and he knows what a talk page is (he's been on a few), so I wasn't sure what the story was. Anyway, the move resolves that issue for now. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ncm, jaysweet - thanks - wow you were fast.. Should I have posted my issue directly up on WP:ANI? Was it not a Wikiquette issue? (20040302 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

The posting on the User page could arguably be a Wikiquette issue, although I'd say it was a mistake.

The removal of AfD tags is a technical issue that is explicitly prohibited by policy. Wikiquette alerts is more for handling civility issues and things like that, and we sometimes handle other things where there is a gray area and maybe we can work things out by just discussing with users.

For the removal of the AfD tags, it's not a civility issue, and it's entirely unambiguous -- removal of the tag while the discussion is still underway is not allowed, especially not by someone who has participated in the discussion. Probably you do not need to report it to ANI right away, but you should warn the user about it (as you did) and if he persists despite multiple warnings, you would then report it to ANI for administrator action. I hope this helps clear up the confusion! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:BigDunc - persistant incivility.

I have had a few run ins with this user in the past. However his behaviour over the past few days has deteriorated. This edit spawned this exchange on his talk page in which he went out of his way to attack me on an unrelated matter. Despite the fact that this user was subsequently banned this edit summary was utterly uncalled for. This edit summary was potentially inflammatory given the subject matter, which is a much debated topic. It has never been proved to my knowledge that anything was planted on that day. This user has been engaged in inappropriate behaviour over the past 24 hours. Perhaps an uninvolved contributor's input would be helpful.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm about as eager to jump into an Ireland/England debate as I am to jump into a Israel/Palestine debate, but I'll give it a whirl anyway.

Regarding the "idiot" edit summary when he removed content from his talk page, I don't think it's a big deal and I would be inclined to let it go. The guy got trolled by a sockpuppet -- that will piss anybody off. He wasn't calling the guy an "idiot" because if any Ireland/England history, he was calling the guy an idiot because he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. I don't have a problem with that.

The nasty argument you two got in on his talk page is more troubling, and he did appear to start the nastiness by calling you out on your presumed party allegiance (based on your username). I will leave him a note reminding him of this thread and suggesting that impugning your political allegiance was probably a Bad Idea, especially given that people tend to get a little upset about England/Ireland issues.

I don't really see "persistent" incivility though... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a big deal, but I didn't think calling me a troll was that civil. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=prev&oldid=225639113 Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While I would not have bothered to warn over that issue, your comment was clearly in good faith. I will issue another warning, and hopefully BigDunc will get the point sooner rather than later. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all that is required is a word in his ear - this is as far as I'm concerned nowhere near deserving a block. These things can get out of hand, when I a user is less than civil to me, my first (stupid) instinct is to be just as rude back to them.. We can disagree, we don't have to put things on a personal level. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am marking as resolved, since it appears based on this that you two have worked out a truce :) Kudos for that! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

User:Polaron keeps reverting my WP:BOLD edits in reconstructing a page for I-587. He keeps reverting the edits to embed I-587 within NY 28. That is a very narrow view to place an interstate on a state route page. That can be very confusing to those looking at interstate pages from the rest of the country. I know I'm from Wisconsin and am an Interstate geek. I want to know about I-587, not some rural state route. Most of the writers from this page have a narrow view here. Frankly, I believe the writers just put I-587 into NY 28 so that it would make feature level. That is wrong. We try our best on Wiki not to confuse the reader and a redirect to I-587 does that. I suggest Polaron and other writers get into this discussion instead of ignoring me and constantly reverting my edits. That is wrong!!! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing discussion at here. It is usually the case here at Misplaced Pages that the status quo be maintained until it is shown that a consensus has changed. This user is also possibly a sock puppet as the user is new and is suddenly aware of the dispute without having ever participated in the discussion. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm an interstate nerd and I've seen you revert several edits. The Interstate page should remain as the default until a discussion is finished. And Polaron has violated the three revert policy. See here. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a formal discussion in progress, no involved party (i.e. neither of you) should be doing related reverts either way.

That said, there is some precedent when the discussion involves a potential merge to leave the page unmerged during the RfC, so that people can more easily see what the unmerged page looks like. Note that I am not proscribing this course of action, and I would caution both editors once again to refrain from further edit warring. But I am floating this possibility in case Polaron would be amenable to leaving the original article intact for now on those grounds. Thoughts? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifyin that this not a potential merge but a potential split. The original state that has not in dispute for a long time is what I am restoring. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I understand your point about defaulting to the status quo. There is no official policy on this, but in the case of content you are right that it is usually done that way. In the case of a merge or a split, it is sometimes useful to leave the page in question as a separate article, to help new participants in the discussion locate it.

There's no policy mandating that, either, it's just a suggestion. The one thing on which there is a policy is edit warring, so I trust both of you are done reverting until the discussion at WT:IH concludes. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Have both articles present for people to see. It is confusing right now and the little blurb within NY 28 doesn't even give I-587 justice. And status quo is not going by a previous discussion that was strictly in the New York Routes forum. Misplaced Pages is a public place, not confined to a couple roadgeeks from New York who want to have things their own way. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Copenhagen

Not sure if this is the place. I posted it on the Vandalism warning-page, but it seems to be directed at the vandals and not the vandalism. Anyway Copenhagen has been seriously vandalized by hacking and the article history and talk pages cannot be accessed. I only have a Lilac Soul on my watchlist as the last one editing the article, but I doubt that that is the person responsible. Please revert the article if it is possible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Juliancolton 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats odd. Works fine for me as well now. Thanks for the response though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Has listed multiple images of mine for deletion. He's only going after mine. It is just a grudge he appears to have because I listed some articles he likes for an AfD. You can find the images in question on SS's contib page. How are my images any different than the one found on the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship for example? They are clearly under used under fair use like that one. If someone can respond to this that would be great. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this revision of BB's talkpage. I've explained what needs to be fixed and it hasn't happened. Hosting these images is clearly in violation of copyright and they need to be fixed or removed as happens to every other image on Misplaced Pages that is NF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This complaint is not within the scope of WQA. Please try WP:EA or WP:3O. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This isn't about the images per say. This is about Shep's proposal for my images to be deleted but not others of similar nature. That is a violation of wikiquette. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep has also violated the three revert policy of Misplaced Pages on those images. Look at the contribs. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not within the scope of WQA, and insisting otherwise will not make it otherwise. Please try the appropriate steps of WP:DR (for 3RR, WP:AN3 is the scope it would fall under). Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A request posted on Misplaced Pages:Third opinion pointed to this section. Third opinions requests should concern disputes where only two editors are involved. BurpTheBaby and StepShep are the two, but others have weighed in over the past few weeks, so WP:3O isn't really the best place to request assistance.

In any case, based on what I can read on various talk pages, it seems that BB needs to make sure that all uploaded non-free images are less than 300 pixels wide, and contain not only a copyright notice but a fair use rationale. The procedure for uploading images prompts you for this. Or you can look at the page source for a valid non-free image, such as Image:2008OpenLogo.gif, and use it as a template for your own image pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They've been deleted. User:Stepshep and User:David did not wait for discussion to be resolved, and did not give proper time for me to fill out long fair rationale paper work and did not give me proper time to re-size the images. It takes time! They clearly have precedent for existing! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past

• A Link to the Past (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

A Link to the Past has been continually rude and blatant towards others and biting newcomers despite being treated kindly. Specifically taking edits to Talk:List of Wii games personally and undoing any major changes made by others while having conducted his own un-discussed changes in the past. He will not change his attitude despite being told to many times by myself and others (even newcomers). Help would be appreciated. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is more about his attitude than his edits, do you want me to link to specific posts he's made that I feel are out of line? Including the majority of Talk:List of Wii games, he has repeatedly bitten other editors for making mistakes (Keep scrolling down on that link) and acted condescending towards me personally for attempting to calm him down. Otherwise, flipping through his contribs should suffice.

On the List of Wii games, his story changes each time he fires up. First his complaints were that it lacked specific dates for Australian releases, then he removed all other dates repeatedly and without discussion other than passing remarks in the edit summery (), they were returned by me and other editors who saw this as either the wrong way to handle things (). Then he complained that the article was too big, so the article was split into three (). Sadly this WP:BOLD action was reverted with an incorrect assumption of the events surrounding it and Link's defense to this was "combined" the articles together were larger than the original article by itself (Which is not how Misplaced Pages regards article size). The discussion process for how to handle the article is moving along (And it's been a done deal between many of us for a while now), however he continues to talk down to everyone with a differing opinion and will not cooperate with the group. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon—Repeated deletion of relevant, cited facts without cause

Concerns about WP:OWN:

• One editor, Taivo, insists that edits to Book of Mormon be cleared at the talk page first, and says "you have no inherent right to change this article" (my emphasis).

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks): link, link, link

Concerns about WP:PRESERVE:

• Deletion of relevant well-cited facts from the article Book of Mormon without specifically addressing the content that they are deleting, or citing Misplaced Pages policy that would justify the deletions.

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks): link, link

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you citing those sources here? It's just adding clutter. Please try to better summarize the breaches in etiquette, because it isn't entirely clear. El_C 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this is clearer. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the full comment from Taivo was "You have no inherent right to change this article on your personal whim and according to your clear anti-LDS agenda." I agree that it was poor phrasing, but I think the point he was trying to get across is that part of the WP:BRD cycle (please see the link) is the R portion of it. If you boldly make major changes to an article, that is fine -- but if it is a highly controversial article that editors have worked a long time to get to a neutral state, you should not be surprised or upset if you are reverted.

I think some of your proposed changes to Book of Mormon are reasonable, but I suggest with such a highly controversial article, you discuss the changes one by one on the talk page and try to get a consensus, rather than adding them all at once. The totality of your changes significantly skews the neutral tone of the article, even if all of the information is factual (see WP:UNDUE for how it is possible for factual information to be pov).

And, if you can't get consensus on the talk page, don't worry too much... It's not like anybody is going to be a believer, then hear the details of the Martin Harris story and change their mind. Faith doesn't work that way. Those who truly believe in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon will find a way to incorporate these facts into their worldview, and those of us who don't buy into it really don't need more convincing. For those approaching it from a purely rational viewpoint, the story rather speaks for itself, even without your proposed additions -- don't you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with WP:BRD, but it's the D-part that we're have difficulty getting to—we seem to be stuck at the to-be-avoided-forth stage of "opposition with little or no supporting evidence" in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. These facts are among the first to be found in most reliable sources describing the Origin of the Book of Mormon, so I do believe that there's an important place for an NPOV representation of this history, which has nothing to do with "convincing" people one way or the other. Frankly, it's an opportunity for the LDS crowd to provide a plausible version of this history, now known to many if only for South Park's representation of it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page and one problem is that your RfC may suffer from a WP:TLDR problem. There are just so many issues being tackled at once.

One issue is that the Martin Harris thing seems more appropriate for Origin of the Book of Mormon than the actual BoM article, but I notice it's missing there, too, which is problematic. The "lost plates" story is a rather significant part of this story, both from an LDS and non-LDS perspective. I agree that it seems to belong either in one place or the other. I can back you up on that on the talk page.

Some of your other edits are more problematic. For instance, the Christopher Hitchens quote is just not going to fly. Even though you are quoting another journalist, it is highly pov and clearly intended to present the information in the most negative light. The presence of Indian burial grounds and treasure-diviners in the Palmyra area around that time period is potentially interesting, but again I think it is more appropriate in Origin of the Book of Mormon, and even then we need to take care about the reliability and neutrality of the sources (I'd have to look at that point more in depth).

In any case, I'd definitely recommend to pick one small issue first, and work to get that changed, and then move from there. I cannot fault Taivo and others for the reverts, because the overall effect of your edits was to skew the tone of the article away from neutral -- even if some of the individual modifications are salvagable. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR—love it. Thanks much for your thoughts. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.226.169.187

Anonymous IP editor making uncivil attacks and accusations in edit summaries , harassing editor who was attacked and continuing to harass editor by reverting removal of attacks from user talk page.--Vidkun (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the ip has decided to disengage and withdraw, at least for now. El_C 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution