Revision as of 23:27, 22 December 2009

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

Flower Travellin Problems - personal attacks, edit wars, POV

Hi - I'm having some issues with a user - and I've been unable to deal with them in the past, so hoped someone else would lend a neutral POV to this. Their contributions seem to be sort of a mixed bag.

(I am also trying to be retired but someone pointed this out to me):

• Some questionable changes :
• Some fine changes:
• Some odd removals of references:
• and some blatant personal attacks and removals of huge chunks of pages (that I was not the only contributor to):

In summary the user seems to want to remove anything but some strange arbitraty stuff they agree with, and want to replace all sources with references to the band's official site.

I have tried to discuss this with the user before, and was told by them not to talk to them again . They refuse to participate in talk pages, and they refuse to use their account ever since they were blocked (although they are not currently blocked)… The user has also (under other IPs) edit warred with others and myself , along with personal attacks and foul language …

I'm not sure how to approach this, didn't want to dig up everything (there were other edit wars I wasn't involved in but they're easy to find) and I really don't want to get involved anymore, but I hope someone else cares enough to get involved. I'm not sure if/when I'll check back here, so feel free to do whatever seems best. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling somebody a vandal is a personal attack and quite unacceptablke. I think though this is probably more a content dispute or may even require admin action because of the way the bands own site is being used instead of secondary sources. Perhaps best would be if you could get a WP:Third opinion or better WP:Request for comments Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I see Lumnifer trying to WP:OWN that article and WP:CIVIL issues on the part of Lumnifer. I've addressed on his/her talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Need independent help with a talkpage

A talk page, Talk:Crucifixion in art, is being enthusiastically discussed and modified by an online forum. That's led to a great number of talkpage comments from SPAs. That isn't terrible, but they border the line of discussing the article, discussing the individual (User:Tryptofish), and just shouting into the ether.

Tryptofish tried to boldly hide some of the discussions rather that outright remove them, but some of the usual IPs are undoing that effort. Can someone independent to the article take a look and see if the entries should be removed, archived, or simply left alone? tedder (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't see that it is too worrying for the moment. There might be a reasonable editor there you never know so if anything I'd go on don't bite the newcomers. The only worry I have about forums doing something is if they have some sort of agenda and so can be counted a meatpuppets but I don't think that's a real worry here. Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated hiding some text which had degenerated into a personal attack and put in a reminder about the purpose of talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking here, and just happened to stumble upon this. I want to thank tedder for raising the issue, and for all his help related to the page. I also thank Dmcq for coming to the talk page and helping, although I also note that some of the editors have reverted what Dmcq did. Let me suggest that impartial editors who read here consider keeping an eye on the talk page (ie, Talk:Crucifixion in art), and see what you think about what shows up there. In my opinion, administrators other than tedder have been too tentative about communicating (ie, at their user talk pages) with editors who make personal attacks, at least to explain to them what is or is not within policy, out of what I guess is fear of being bitey.

By way of background, it is useful to look at our page on 4chan. What I think can be described as a sister-site of that is very actively engaged in egging on its readers to come to Misplaced Pages for the general purpose of removing anime-related images that they find offensive, and, now, for the specific purpose of trolling and harassing me. When Dmcq invokes bite, that's perfectly understandable if you don't know what's going on, but please believe me that an awful lot of these are not simply new editors, but meatpuppets with a disruptive agenda. (P.S.: I just looked briefly at tedder's link. Remarkable how people who cannot seem to come up with a diff to support their allegations of my supposedly terrible editing have no problem posting diffs of my edits, as soon as I make them, on their external site.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"What I think can be described as a sister-site of that is very actively engaged in egging on its readers to come to Misplaced Pages for the general purpose of removing anime-related images that they find offensive" - Thats so sad :( Too bad its not true. Stop trying to frame everyone who thought the anime section in Crucifixion was out of place, specially with the tacky anime pictures, in a bad light. Noone was arguing the removal of ALL PRESIOUS ANIMU PICTURES from wikipedia, just a spesific picture from a spesific article. Truth be told its amazing something came of it at all with the ungodly hours, millions of rules and wall-of-text "some" editors spent trying to prevent any change to a section they feel they own.

Honestly this discussion(and the shitload of others) could be seen as part of a long term campaign to have the changes reverted. If anything this case is a textbook example of editors bending the WPs rules to get their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And? I don't see what you are trying to prove here, if you want to ask me something go ahead and do it. Stop being so passive-aggressive about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Something Awful#Possible addition. I'm going to just drop the stick and WP:DENY at this point, but please note how editors are coming as meatpuppets from the site, with a clear COI of preventing any edit to the page that goes against a one-sided positive POV. Also, parroting of references to WP:SPADE at Talk:Crucifixion in art, and a registered editor who is making a career of going from talk page to talk page and rendering my user name as "Typofish". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the user doing the 'typofish' thing, do you have diffs, and have you warned them against changing talkpage comments? tedder (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it isn't going back and changing my signature, but, rather, just pointedly calling me that name. No I haven't warned them, as I fear any warning from me would just be gasoline on the fire, but it got discussed, not in hindsight in the best way, at Talk:Crucifixion, where it happened first: . Followed by disingenuous , and now . Preceded by a lot of stuff like this , and a somewhat interesting user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds like the normal SPA SA griefers. tedder (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that such SPA conduct by any editor is acceptable, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenebrae

This editor has issues with my editing, and these matters can be discussed elsewhere. What I object to and would like to have Tenebrae spoken to about is his manner of communication. Irrespective of what he believes, comments in Edit Summaries should not name another editor or make derogatory assumptions : This user is not an adminstrator. Many thanks.

Asgardian (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a civility concern to me. You should note that there is nothing wrong with referring to other editors in edit summaries, what an edit summary should do is describe changes made to the article, when you undo an edit the software automatically names the user who has had their edits undone. This edit summary does not satisfactorily explain the changes made, this one does.

Accusing Tenebrae of breaching civility was not a very good move in my opinion, due to the fact he hadn't broken civility, but also because making such accusations can inflame a situation. The edit summary you seem to have a problem with is: "restoring to last protected version Asgardian unilaterally and summarily reinstalled his controversial, edit-warring version". This, although showing some disregard for your work, is not uncivil, and should not be treated as such.

You seem to be in a content dispute on the Juggernaut page, what I often see at WQA is users who are in content disputes coming here with accusations of civility breaks within the dispute, most the time these accusations, although not malicious, are unfounded. Remember, during a content dispute tempers and patience can fray. It important to AGF, and always keep in mind the goal of the content dispute: to improve the project.

I suggest that you resolve the content dispute with Tenebrae on the article talk page, remember that you both have the same goal in mind, and that you should both try and be as reasonable and polite as possible.

Again, this does not look like a civility issue. Kindest regards, Spitfire 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreee. I think it could be phrased a tad better but it does seem to me that there is an acknowledged edit war in progress and that you did completely change the page and put in a deceptive summary. This seems to be a content dispute and you need to follow that Dispute resolution process. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There would seem to be some inconsistencies here. A previous administrator stated that editors have a right not to be named in Edit Summaries, and yet here another says it is fine. I am also wary of the statement that there was a "deceptive summary" as that implies there was a deliberate attempt at some covert action, which was not true. I suppose this exposes one of those chinks in the Misplaced Pages armour: different people at different times making what are ultimately subjective interpretations of regulations. No matter. We'll move and try and resolve this. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tenebrae. As chronicled here, he is far from the first to find Asgardian's edit-summaries deliberately misleading, and among other things, Asgardian's reaction of very easily bringing up "civility concerns" is traced into a pattern. This page is worth keeping a note of for administrators to gain a wider perspective of the situation. Dave (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The referenced link is to a draft RFC on a user talk page that has not been posted. Doesn't strike me as relevant... Gerardw (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly much better not to name other editors in edit summaries. They can easily turn into personal attacks and are harder to remove than entries in talk pages. As to your edit summary could you be quite a bit more careful in future please not to just say something like you are putting in some extra references when you revert an article to something quite different. I think that would help save hassle like this. Say you are reverting and to what so others know what's happened. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an oversight. Thank you for the advice. Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

This situation may seem minor compared to others on this page, but my intent is to get a little advice and try to curb this before it mushrooms into something more serious. User:WVBluefield has joined an ongoing lengthy discussion at Talk:Bill Maher - a discussion which has already had its share of degeneration into unproductive discourse in the past. WVBluefield entered the discussion by starting this thread with his admittedly soapbox commentary on other editors (myself included):

I have to agree with Weakopedia that the discussion here made it hard for people to weigh in on this RfC. Both of you (Xeno and VT) should tone it down and give the talk page some space for other people to become involved. Now that I’m off my soapbox, ...

He followed that with constructive discussion about article improvement, so I ignored his comments on editors and responded only to his discussion about the article. He then responded by mischaracterizing my comments to him:

...don’t split hairs and argue semantics as it only destroys and degrades the tone conversation and turns people into adversaries.

I felt the insertion of these invectives into an otherwise constructive discussion was unproductive, so I removed the offensive wording, citing WP:NPA, and continued the discussion with him. As sometimes happens when comments about editors are refactored from talk pages, WVBluefield got upset, reverted my removals and threatened to go to ANI if I didn't leave his incivilities on the article talk page.

This was getting worse faster than it was getting better. I tried to engage him on his talk page. Instead of edit warring over his incivilities, I asked him if he would remove his inappropriate comments himself, or explain why he felt they needed to be on an article talk page. His terse response:

I wont be removing anything I wrote.

Here is the full exchange between us on his talk page, which he has since deleted. His commentary about editors and incivilities remain on the article talk page, and he refuses to acknowledge another editor's concerns about them. Well, I've seen worse - so I figured I'd let the still minor matter blow over. Unfortunately, WVBluefield has other plans. After responding to other editors, WVBluefield felt the need to interject this personal attack into an already existent otherwise reasonable comment:

Seeing as how Xenophrenic is so intent on non-cooperation here (its not a contest to see who can type the most) and has failed to put together a coherent argument... here.

That is unacceptable, and I highly suspect I am being baited or trolled into a harsher reaction. Add to that he has been recently blocked for, coincidentally, "incivility and disruptive edit warring on article talk page". That just tells me this has the potential to get worse. Are my concerns warranted? Advice? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Since WVBluefield has stated, "I consider this matter settled, so please dont bother me further about it here", could I impose upon another reader to notify him of this thread? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Gerardw (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do consider this matter settled. Xenophrenic removed not just what he thought were personal attacks but also the additional talk page content that I hadadded, even going so far as to start an edit war over it. He’s been here for a while, so he should know better than to modify talk page content, and he damn well should know that outright removal or deletion of talk page content is prohibited. As far as the potential to get worse, Xeno certainly has his own history and has been sanctioned by Arbcom for turning articles into battlegrounds. I came to the article only because I saw it posted at RfC and I though I could be of some help, as I was to Xeno with a Ward Churchill related article. This alert is entirely spurious and question Xeno’s motivations for posting it. You can consider this my one and only reponse. WVBluefield (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we please remain factual about this, WVB? The link you provided does not show me removing additional talk page content of yours. If you'll look a little more closely, you'll see that you used the (undo) function to revert my removal of your inappropriate commentary on editors, and I then used the (undo) function to revert your edit. You happened to also slip in some additional text with your revert, without noting it in the edit summary; instead leaving it to appear you had only reverted. All of my subsequent edits removed only your inappropriate comments. It surprised me that you would start an edit war to keep inappropriate commentary on an article talk page.

Will you please remove that commentary? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wont remove anything, as your behavior was even worse than I first characterized. I know I said I wouldn’t comment further on this, but one quick response is needed. You deleted my additional paragraph not once, but twice even when one of my edit summaries was very specific that I was adding additional comments. I can only assume that your removal of Don’t modify my talk page comments. There were no personal attacks there, only observations and some constructive advice was your attempt to drive the talk page discussion in a way that favored you. WVBluefield (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect again, WVB, as the links you provided show. Only comments inappropriate for an article talk page were removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is best not to remove other editor's comments except in extraordinary circumstances Misplaced Pages:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If you feel attack, ask the user to remove or rephrase and if that fails bringing to WQA would be a good next step. Could Xenophrenic agree not to edit other's comments and WVBluefield to keep the content discussion on the content and not other editors? Gerardw (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As you advise, I did ask the user to remove the inappropriate comments, and that failed so I brought it here to WQA. The link you provided indicates it is appropriate to remove obvious trolling, which I did. Of course I agree to not edit other's appropriate comments. The inappropriate comments are still on the article talk page. What would you suggest as the correct next step? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at multiple links in quick succession and failed to post this one Misplaced Pages:Talk#Others.27_comments. Simply stated, it's best if you just don't edit others comments. If there is outing information it needs to be deleted (not revised) by an admin. Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is even better if inappropriate comments aren't made on article talk pages in the first place, in violation of WP:NPA and WP:TP. I understand the point you are making regarding deletion of other people's comments. Do you have any suggestions regarding the inappropriate comments presently on the article talk page? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them. Gerardw (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply put: Do not make edits conditionally allowable by guidelines, and ignore edits made by others that are unconditionally prohibited by policy. Got it. Thank you for your input in this matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not a place to come to enlist supporters for your dispute with another editor. The diffs provided to support your claim of NPA do nothing of the sort and to claim that they do is arrant nonsense. At worst the comments could be described as very midly uncivil, but even that is stretching it. On the other hand, editing talk page comments by other editors is forbidden (even editing your own comments on article talk pages is strongly discouraged). Editors have been blocked before for far less and frankly your attitude here seems to be tendentious. I suggest you drop the whole thing, take a break and allow yourself to cool down and then when you come back to Misplaced Pages you might consider editing somewhere else where you are not so emotionally invested. If you continue down your current path I predict a block in your future. No I am not an admin, which is probably just as well for you or you would have already been blocked. - Nick Thorne 05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, cowboy! Where did that come from? If you'll please re-read the discussion above, you'll note I have no "dispute with another editor". The issue was NPA instructs us to comment on content, not on editors, and comments like, "Seeing as how Xenophrenic is so intent on non-cooperation here (its not a contest to see who can type the most) and has failed to put together a coherent argument..." really looks like a comment on editors to me. Perhaps you disagree, but that is nothing to get so riled up over. On the otherhand, according to the links provided by Gerardw, there are numerous occasions and situations when one editor might edit or remove another editor's comments. You apparently disagree with this also, but such disagreements hardly warrant your tirade. If you really want to pick a fight, could you please choose someone else? This matter was closed as far as I was concerned. Gerardw was kind enough to give me his input, and I appreciate that, despite our differing viewpoints. Please step back and let the matter rest, Nick. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit, dripping with sarcasm, is hardly that of somebody who has taken on board the good advice of another editor and who considers the matter closed. Your attempt to refactor your blatant deletion (twice) of another editor's comments on an article talk page as somehow acceptable only serves to compound your error. Understand this - it is never acceptable to edit another editor's comments on an article talk page. Full stop. No exceptions. Not ever. It is not me who should stop, it is you, lest you incur the wrath of a passing admin. You are standing on very thin ice there, be careful. You really do not seem to understand the gravity of what you have done. My advice to you is that you forthwith give a full and sincere apology to WVBluefield and promise never to edit, delete or hide the comments of another editor on any article talk page again. - Nick Thorne 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Understand this - it is never acceptable to edit another editor's comments on an article talk page. -- Nick

removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. --WP:NPA

Full stop. -- Nick

Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. --WP:TP

No exceptions. -- Nick

Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism --WP:Civility

Not ever. -- Nick

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. --WP:NPA

...promise never to edit, delete or hide the comments of another editor on any article talk page again. -- Nick

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: --WP:NPA
Once again, Nick, I respectfully ask that you let the matter rest. Please stop picking fights with me; please cease trying to escalate a closed matter. G'day, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking your five items in turn:

• not aplicable in this case as there was no personal attack
• you did not exercise any caution and you have not shown that it was allowed in this case
• there was no trolling or vandalism
• no unusual circumstances in this case
• only in your mind was there a personal attack. Your oversensitivity does not make everyone else's personal attack.

I am not trying to pick any sort of fight with you, rather I am trying to get you to see that you are at least as cuplable as the editor you opened this WQA about. You have not made any allowance for the fact that the written word is easy to misinterpret with regard to tone and so comments that may be written with a light even humourous "voice" in the head of the person writing may be "heard" as offensive or critical by the reader. Your response has been completely disproportionate to the alleged offence and I am calling you on it. If you don't like that, well that really is too bad. I don't really care all that much - just go on as you have been and see where it gets you. It's no skin off my nose. On the other hand, if you actually want to help participate in building an encyclopedia, then you might want to re-read my words without your automatic defensive weaponry armed and ready and you might just learn something that will help you out on Wikip

Nick, even while you claim you are "just trying to get me to see", your condescending attitude belies that. "want to help participate in building an encyclopedia?" "help you out on Misplaced Pages and in life?" Please. While I did come here to solicit advice, I did not expect it to come from on high. You wikilawyer my "five items" above while totally missing the point: you claimed editing another's talk page comments is never permissible, when it is. At least we now agree on that. Frankly, Nick, I took your initial comments as those from someone that knew nothing about this situation, and even less about policy. Telling someone to stop editing comments when he already has; or to apologize when he has already said he was sorry for the misunderstanding; or to take a break and cool down when the matter had already settled and everyone had moved on - are you sure you are commenting on the correct matter here? The issue was an editor commenting on another editor on article talk pages - not the personal attacks. Yes his comments were uncivil - and his last one was certainly trolling - but if you'll read the complaint above, you'll see the issue was where he was commenting, not what he was saying. I even offered to continue the discussion about WVB's concerns on his talk page. The only sensitivity I showed was for the other editors on that article talk page. The page is cluttered enough without subjecting them to more irrelevant commentary about editors by editors. Since we're sharing advice, you may wish to review issues more thoroughly before interjecting, and definitely brush up on Misplaced Pages policy - not just the wording, but the spirit and intent. If our paths cross again, I really do hope we both get off on better footing. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that I have allowed you to bait me here as long as you have but Nick brought up a good point, and one I have briefly touched on before. Your response to my alleged outrages on your personal dignity are completely disproportionate to what actually happened and when looked at in combination with your history here and the way you seem to take every talk page you participate on and spam the living heck out of it shows an alarming level of disruption and tendentiousness. This isn’t a battlefield or a debating board and you don’t “win” arguments here or convince others of a direction to take an article through sheer stamina on the talk page and always having the last word. How you have evaded administrative oversight for your behavior puzzles me. WVBluefield (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting about editors on article talk pages, WVB. Your history of warnings and blocks here, on both of your accounts, during such a short time is indicative of deeper problems. The advice given you on the several noticeboard incidents would be best heeded. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What we do here, as outlined here ], is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility and/or difficult communications; The input of two neutral editors has been that WVBluefield's edits were not significantly uncivil enough to warrant editing talk page comments. Your stated goal in posting was to get a little advice, which has been provided. As you stated the matter was closed, I'm tagging this section as resolved; if you disagree we can tag it WQA in progress to solicit additional editor's input. Alternatively you can take the complaint to WP:AN/I. My opinion is concurrent with Nick's: I think it likely you would receive more scrutiny for editing the talk page comments than WVBluefield would for posting them. Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, Gerardw. My stated goal was for advice to curb this "before it mushroomed into something more serious", but fortunately WVBluefield ceased the article page incivilities at that point - so perhaps the mere posting of my request here served its purpose. As I mentioned above, I do understand the points you were making about editing other people's comments, and I had already come to a similar conclusion before coming here. Otherwise, I would have continued to remove the incivilities and taken the matter straight to AN/I for enforcement - but the attacks simply weren't that abrasive. Instead, I copied the commentary to WVB's talk page, perfectly willing to continue the discussion there until we resolved his concerns. Yes, I consider this matter closed. I appreciate your candor and demeanor, even in the face of my expresssed disagreement (confused by Nick as sarcasm), and your advice. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility by User:Satt 2 (talk · contribs)

I am suffering terrible abuse from User:Satt 2 (talk · contribs), please see (chronologically): this edit summary, this post, this post, this edit summary and this post. 08:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. After all the harassment that I receive from him through e-mail, I am not surprised I lost my last nerve.--Satt 2 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have never sent you an email. A sysop should be able to confirm this. Responding to a wikiquette alert with a lie is extremely bad faith. 08:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

well, of course you did not do it through[REDACTED] when you can harass me in real life. I know you have been stalking me for a while now. You know what, Nasir, just because we could not agree on things in our Euro class does not mean you should take your hate in real life or online.Leave me alone and stop appearing like you're some kind of angel --Satt 2 (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Falsely accusing somebody of harrassment is even more serious than the previous lie you posted. According to your userpage you live in the USA. I live in England (this is my static IP), so i'm not your "Euro class" buddy. 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Posted by 94.192.38.247 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are enough technologically advanced to know that there are a wide range of tricks one can do with IP addresses. Please come up with something more reliable.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And No, I never said you were a "buddy." I did call you a whole range of other things, however.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I want to recommend a sanction be given to this user for his behaviour this morning. 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the administrators will be able to handle this situation without any recommendations from you. I'm sure they have seen a million things like this.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is beyond my understanding how can one view insults in everything. I only suggested that you might be unaware of softwares that change IP addresses to "protect" the owners. They are costly but it is a good investment for certain types of maniacs.--Satt 2 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who started, I do know who has to stop. This is not the place to continue fighting (and neither is anywhere else on wiki). --Dirk Beetstra 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've noticed Dirk, I haven't been fighting, I've been reporting a case of gross incivility. 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you keep commenting. --Dirk Beetstra 10:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded to the report by adding lies? Is there something wrong with commenting to respond to that? He has also continued the incivility here - "I never said you were a "buddy." I did call you a whole range of other things, however", "a good investment for certain types of maniacs". 10:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it shows that it does not help either. Remember why you posted here. --Dirk Beetstra 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to help, but yes. 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Satt2 the behavior documented in the original post is unacceptable. Are you willing to cease voluntarily? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the language is inappropriate (although much of it is on talk pages. Having spent time looking at this I think you are both to blame and the edit waring is a nonsense. I have reverted Europe to the position before you both got started on this. I suggest you take some time out, then sit down and use the talk page to reach an agreement. I suggest this is closed, but someone put both editors under a mild warning in case of recurrence. --Snowded 12:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to give Satt2 an opportunity to respond before we consider this resolved. Gerardw (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections to that --Snowded 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Users are routinely sanctioned for a fraction of this behaviour. I wasn't rude to him once, I took all that abuse he threw, I reminded him of the guidelines , I used the talk page to explain my changes, he never once used it. I hope there is a sense of justice around here, so I know I haven't wasted my time trying to do the right thing. 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Satt 2 has responded on my talkpage, and posted a couple of times on a couple of talkpages of mainspace articles. --Dirk Beetstra 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about Stevenmitchell

After receiving an extremely confrontational message on my talk page concerning my otherwise uncontroversial (and I thought welcome) improvement of a poorly made diagram on the menstruation article, I noticed that this user's talk page is full of requests to stop being "a jerk", or to read Don't be a dick or WP:ATTACK, all from different users involved in different articles. It looks like there was a previous Wikiquette_alert concerning this user in June, but the user failed to participate. IMO, it doesn't look like this user is taking our civility policy very seriously. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I posted the following message because I think that you destroyed a very effective diagram by another contributor to Misplaced Pages (it was not my contribution):

Wow - a destructive Admin... Thanks for removing the effective and useful diagram on the Menstruation article and replacing it with a less informative and essentially useless one... Ordinarily, one would think you are part of the watering-down of the media... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Follow this very simply... I actually derived the title from what I had observed on the article in question along with what was posted by numerous other Misplaced Pages editors who are replete with comments on your own User:Talk Page of how you have deleted constructive work (usually the editors themselves were the ones who were deleted and commenting on your page), was that you removed constructive contributions. I am very happy for you that you "by yourself" have decided to be the sole contributor to Misplaced Pages, but as it is a collaborative effort, I am suggesting that you deleted someone's else work that was worthwhile. Under the circumstances, I am rephrasing my point - If you felt so compelled about your own contribution, I believe (and I think this is the Misplaced Pages protocol) that you should have posted this new diagram on the Article Discussion page first or put it in the article along with the existing diagram. Now, because I don't agree with your position or contribution in this instance (and probably never will), you are apparently trying to call for my censorship. Hopefully, the powers that be, are not as narrow in scope or as bullying as you appear to be... (I will post this on your page as well)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly did not destroy anything. I simply replaced an old diagram with a new one in an article. If anyone objects to that, they are free to revert the change or discuss it on the article talk page (neither of which have been done). Personally attacking me is not a solution, nor is it allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither other editor's past characterizations nor another editor's actions changes the standard of civil behavior. Sarcasm I am very happy for you... is not helpful. Gerardw (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First off are the obvious civility issues, which are documented above and in the previous WQA. It's clear that this user needs to calm down when using the 'pedia; the comments of multiple editors on both WQAs make this clear. The civility problems might be helped by more productive engagement with fellow editors in the following two ways. First, Stevenmitchell should read this essay on contributing content to Misplaced Pages. It describes a paradigm for building content collaboratively without needing to attack users who have contrary views. Second, I'd recommend familiarity with the proper use of article talk pages. I have noticed that the user inserts commentary, sometimes sarcastic, into articles as HTML comments (, ), which is productive neither as an efficient way to communicate with fellow collaborators nor in terms of the tone used. — æk 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated allegations of sockpuppetry against myself by User:Legolas2186

Not too long after I began editing on Misplaced Pages, User:Legolas2186 referred to me as User:Pokerdance (an inactive editor who seems to have had issues with socking, judging from the history of his/her talk page). I thought this was simply him getting confused, and when I asked who this editor was, he did not tell me. I ignored this incident and moved on. However, it came up again, but after the aforementioned first incident, he was flat-out accusing me of being a sock of Pokerdance.

• Here, when one of Legolas' friends is warned for a 3RR incident, he says many derogatory and/or false things about me, including again stating that I am a sock of Pokerdance and some other editor User:D.C. Blake (I presume this is one of Pokerdance's socks).

• I then confronted Legolas about the aforementioned incident, where he says he's "more than 100% convinced" that I am Pokerdance and telling me I will be a "banned sock" if I continue with 3RR (which I didn't have a problem with to start with; more false accusations against me).

• After User:Bradcro (one of Legolas' friends) refers to me as Pokerdance at this AFD, I am offended and confront him (not as civil as I could have, but oh well) yet again. He replies only with, "I don't even bother with you untill (sic) you 3RR on the Gaga articles." (Hadn't had an issue with 3RR again and at this time, I was barely editing at Lady Gaga articles.) I tell him to leave me alone about the sock thing, but he doesn't respond (and again continues.)

• When Legolas misuses rollback on an article, I warn him not to do so. He responds in a completely incivil and disrespectful manner: "Please don't lecture me on how to use Rollback sock."

• Here, when an editor disagreed with me opening a GAR on Hilary Duff, Legolas went to this editor's talk page to again state that I am a sock.

This is beyond ridiculous and immature. If he is this convinced I am a sock, he needs to take it up at SPI where checkuser would show I am clearly not a sock. Instead, he is being a bully/troll about it and slandering me anytime he sees my name brought up. It's discouraging me from editing further at Misplaced Pages, and I think he's actually trying to bully me out of here for whatever reason (I never ran across him until he first "accidentally" called me Pokerdance). I want to know what his problem is, why he feels the need to constantly harass me, and why he can't go to SPI if he thinks I am a sock. Chase wc 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I still stand my ground that this user is a sock of User:Pokerdance, User:D.C. Blake becasue of the same editing patterns, genre warrioring and aggressive nature in editing articles. If the user's ways had changed I wouldn't have accused of sockpuppetry, but since it hasnot, I will report it to SPI. --Legolas 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, pending resolution of the SPI, will you avoid referring to Chase wc as a sock? Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - No SPI has yet been filed by Legolas2186. Exxolon (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Chase, have there been further sockpuppet accusations? Gerardw (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem with IP editor on Talk:Jennifer Garner?

I'm a bit concerned about the attitude and actions of an IP editor, 70.241.26.184, on talk:Jennifer Garner. Recently, another IP editor questioned the relevance of one of the sections in the biography of Jennifer Garner. A registered editor, Emma white20, posted in defence of the section, at which point 70.241.26.184 joined the discussion, supporting the view of the first IP editor and stating that "If it's not rewritten and sourced within the next few weeks, I'll remove it myself". Emma white20 replied to the post by 70.241.26.184 stating in question form their view that, if the section was indeed unencyclopedic and irrelevant, it would almost certainly have been removed a long time ago by one of the experienced and registered editors who regularly police the article. They then did as 70.241.26.184 demanded by editing the section and adding additional sources to the four already there, at which point 70.241.26.184 accused Emma white20 of "bulldozing" and made a claim of apparent greater authority/experience as an editor than appears to be supported by their short edit history. They also posted what amounted to an ultimatum by stating "If the section isn't improved 'in the next day or so', I'll ask for a third, fourth or even fifth opinion on this because I'm not about to roll over just because you have an issue with playing well with others." At this point, I joined the discussion in support of Emma white20's position on retention, and stated that, in my opinion, editing down and sourcing an article didn't class as "bulldozing", while giving ultimatums to other editors and trying to influence their edits could certainly be interpreted that way. 70.241.26.184 then made further accusations of posts against them being "dismissive" and "condescending", which may have been aimed at either myself or Emma white20, although it is unclear who they were actually aimed at. With the discussion deadlocked with two IP editors in favour of deleting the section, and two registered editors in favour of retention, and without any prior open consultation with the other editors involved, 70.241.26.184 then opened an RfC on the matter of possible deletion of the section, in what could possibly be construed as an apparent attempt to gain support for their position. It seems to me that they may be trying to rush Misplaced Pages process in an attempt to get their way, plus have some issues with their attitude towards other editors who hold opposing views, and I'd certainly appreciate any additional views on their conduct and help with resolving the situation. Gidz (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First - consensus is not a !vote so there's no such thing as "deadlocked" in this situation. You can drive by and say you support someone all you want - you did not even attempt to include a policy based reason why the content should be included which is what consensus should be based on. Second - I didn't canvass anyone to support me so how is opening a valid request for comment to get additional editors views an "apparent attempt to gain support" for my supposed position? I also didn't hurl any personal attacks at anyone so the faux concern is misplaced. I'm allowed to state that I find someone's attitude or comments condescending or dismissive. By the way, a request for comment can run for up to 30 days. If I were that interested in trying to slam dunk this, I would have tried a quicker route. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on the condescension isn't actually helpful. Staying cool and dpening the RFC is.Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The comments were aimed at Emma white20, who was commenting on the editor's status (IP) and not the content and therefore could be easily perceived as condescending. Opening an RFC is exactly what should be done when consensus can't be achieved and is evidence of WP:CIVILITY. Gerardw (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about Madchester and AnemoneProjectors

I updated the Leona Lewis section of the Run (Snow Patrol song) page to note that it was no longer the fastest downloaded single in the UK. This was reverted by AnemoneProjectors and rewritten in a way which would mislead the reader into thinking that the song was still the fastest downloaded song. I sent AnemoneProjectors a message asking him not to do this and was suprised to recieve a message from Madchester asking me not to threaten other Misplaced Pages editors. I would like both these admins to be warned about ganging up and bullying other editors as this is not right. Riksweeney (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The user offered a compromise and updated the page to reflect that it is no longer the fastest selling UK downloads. Furthermore, this is unacceptable. You accused AnemoneProjectors of "vandalising", which shows a failure to assume good faith. Further, I highly suspect this edit to have been made by you, rejecting the user's compromise. Your edit removed sourced material without providing a rationale. You have not tried to discuss the issue in a civil manner. So far, it seems as if you are the one violating Wikiquette. Intelligentsium 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Intelligentsium. Furthermore, it would seem that you did not even bother to read the instructions at the top of this page, since you did not notify either of the editors you are complaining about. Additionally, you did not provide diffs, which means that anyone seeking to help has to hunt out the information to get to the heart of the matter. There is no indication that you have tried to resolve this issue yourself before coming here, rather you would seem to be the one who has acted in an uncivil manner with your post on AnemoneProjectors' talk page. In future, you should at least try to resolve differences about articles on the article talk page and at all times remember to assume good faith. - Nick Thorne 22:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions by MisterWiki for no reason

The user MisterWiki has been reverting my edits for no good reason, tagging my edits as vandalism including here. Just yesterday I uploaded the same image that you can see at Last Exit to Brooklyn (song), I, however, provided a lower resolution and I also cropped it so the side bar-code which still up to this moment is visible on the image that still stands at Last Exit to Brooklyn (song) wouldn't be there. MisterWiki, reverted my uploaded version calling it vandalism. After I explained him at his talk-page that there is no reason to keep his uploaded version which has the bar-code uncropped, he reverted my edits again and posted it for Speedy deletion claiming that it clearly violated WP:NFCC#3, I'm not sure how mine was different from his. Please note that he has just recently cropped and uploaded the same image (you can see it here) providing a lower resolution; however, has failed to change the image-address at the page of the article where you can see his original uploaded version still standing.

Please also note that he's been edit-warring with as well, and one of the examples can be seen at You Can Win If You Want. MisterWiki moved three times the title "You Can Win If You Want" to "You Can Win if You Want" (1st time, 2nd time, 3rd time), finally I was able to talk some sense into him at the talk page and he left it alone.

I am not sure what can be done in a situation like this, but after he was able to get the image deleted, he's been leaving messages at my talk page (see this here) threating me that if I don't stop vandalizing the pages he will request a block. I'd appreciate if someone could look at this.--Harout72 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:MisterWiki of this discussion. — æk 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I note that you continue to use the revert feature to revert content edits: , ; as well as the revert feature of Twinkle: , . The latter two diffs could also be interpreted as personal attacks, given that the edit summaries assert that certain edits are vandalism. I suggest you closely study WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:REVERT unless you want to find yourself losing access to tools. — ækTalk 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Answer: It's not personal attacks, It IS vandalism and I know PERFECTLY how to use these tools, thank you, but it's fine.

Does this look like a functioning source to you here? Because that's the source the position No. 9 was supported by, see it here. Just because you were able to search and locate the source, doesn't not mean that it was there before. Be competent about it and do not call editors vandals.

• Answer: Are you blind or what. Can't you click that link and find the source? Ah?

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution