Revision as of 17:00, 19 November 2011

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 discussions

User:Denniss

• Denniss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fritz X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Denniss has been uncivil in edit summaries while reverting my changes to Fritz X twice (quote "what's your problem ?!?"). I left him a message on his user talk page, asking him to be a bit more civil. After that, I noticed that his user talk page contains more complaints about his edit behavior and that the history of his talk page shows he has removed at least one negative comment (from user User:JackJackUK). It seemed to me that Denniss would not get the point if I left it at that, so I gave him a "no personal attacks" caution. The user promptly removed it, again being uncivil in the edit summary (quot "You really seem to have problems ......."). I would like some advice and/or assistance on how to help Denniss understand that this is not the way to behave on Misplaced Pages.

    — SkyLined (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see above: "Include diffs that show the situation". I checked the article history and yes it's somewhat rude. More importantly it's becoming an edit war. Perhaps taking it to the article's talk page would be a good start. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

SkyLined should have taken this discussion to the article talkpage after Denniss' initial revert, which contained a perfectly fine edit summary. Removing content from one's own tallk page is perfectly acceptable behavior. Adding a template to the initial post on Denniss's talk page was unnecessary. Gerardw (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I should explain a bit more: the contents of the edit to Fritz X is not really relevant to my complaint and the dispute over that edit has been resolved. Rather, I felt that Denniss was uncivil during the resolution of that dispute and wanted to talk to him about that on his talk page. After posting a message, I had a look at the other topics on his talk page, and its history, and noticed that I was not the only one complaining about his behavior. I figure that I could no longer assume good faith and that a caution would be the right thing to do. However, Denniss removed my caution with another uncivil edit summary.

@Walter Görlitz: I'm not sure what diffs would be relevant here. The relevant information is on his talk page and its history: it contains plenty complaints from various users. I'm not suggesting all of these complaints are valid, but I do think they support my claim that Denniss has a tendency to be uncivil to other editors.

@Gerardw: Responding to complaints by removing them is not civil behavior in my oppinion.

I'm looking for assistance in convincing Denniss to be a little more civil. If you do not consider my current complaint valid, please do tell me what I could do if I had a valid complaint about a user being uncivil and ignoring my attempts to talk to him about it.     — SkyLined (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In some contexts removing comments without replying would be consider rude, however it's longstanding WP practice that removing other's comments from one's talk page is permitted. See WP:TPO#owntalk. Gerardw (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal attacks by User Kansas Bear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please pay attention to User: Kansas Bear tone of writing here Talk:Abd al-Qadir Maraghi.He also posed unfounded accusaons and personal attacks against me here Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis to poison atmosphere against me.,, , , He accused me to do personal attacks against other users , but all of them were reaction to his unfounded claims and were not personal attacks, I also deleted some of my comments like this to prevent further tension, but he continued personal attacks directed at Azerbaijani-ethnic people and me.I really could not tolerate these personal attacks,that would be of your kindness if you explain more about the problem that these statements have , to the writing editor.With Respect--Orartu (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but disagreeing with you does not constitute a personal attack. Reviewing the talk page I find your (Oratu's) contributions more inflammatory than Kansas Bear's; I recommend you tone it down. Gerardw (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If I am faulty, and he is innocent, I leave wikipedia and they can contribute freely.--Orartu (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

the worst that can be said is that he commented on another editor, however it seems that you were both doing that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User Kansan Bear is a valuable user, well known to everyone for his neutrality. The point of this discussion is the recent attempts of User Orartu for accusing everyone that has any kind of disagreement with her. Just see two examples here and here. It seems she is misusing wikipedia's notice boards to find a means to push away every user that has any kind of disagreement with her. I kindly ask admins to pay more attention to such behaviors.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention to personal attacks of Aliwiki against me.Thanks--Orartu (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to show us some of these attacks for us to notice, pay attention to or comment on them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For example his above mentioned accusations against me.--Orartu (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave up.They can do what they want.--Orartu (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We've already pointed-out that those actions are not attacks. I assumed that there were more actions that would constitute attacks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA says:Comment on content, not on the contributor. but both Aliwiki and User: Kansas Bear comment on me, not on discussed subject.Here Aliwiki has talked against me:" He proposed a deletion, and he has started accusing all the users who has disagreed with him there. I'll keep this report in mind"--Orartu (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry in some instances it is necessary to discuss editors, especially in WP:ANI. If the administrators looking at your case feel the need to chastise a editor in the discussion for talking about another editor they'll do so. I'll use a Christian principle which may be lost on you. In Gospel of Matthew chapter 7 Jesus talks about hypocrites who have logs in their own eyes pointing out the speck in the eye of someone else (Matthew 7:3–5). That's essentially what we have here. You opened the ANI dispute. That's certainly talking about another editor. Now that the other editors are discussing the activity and explaining why they did what they did, they have to mention your behaviour. You cannot turn around and claim that it's a personal attack. It doesn't work that way at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, User:Orartu is commenting against users who disagree with her in the contents. Her actions are exactly the opposite of what she said :"Comment on content, not on the contributor". I believe she should change her attitude towards other users. including me. Regards, In fact 04:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misread what I wrote. You're the editor with the log in your eye and you're trying to get the speck out of the eyes of other editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean this one"the worst that can be said is that he commented on another editor, however it seems that you were both doing that". --Orartu (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me.What I must do?Please guide me as a neutral one.For example what reaction should I show against accusations?--Orartu (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You ask what must you do. Well, first you need to acquaint yourself with the policies I mentioned above. You need to make absolutely sure that your edits comply with those policies in every particular and more important than anything else you need to assume good faith on the part of the other editors of the pages you work on. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and that is not possible if one of the parties throws unfounded and inflamatory accusations around about the others involved. Do not accuse others of racism. Do not make edits to articles that are not supported by reliable sources. Discuss proposed edits on the article talk page before you make contentious changes and if the consensus goes against what you want to do, don't make the changes anyway or continue to go on and on about it. Accept that the community has decided differently to how you may have liked, and leave it. - Nick Thorne 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:Orartu just attacked me and accused me in here. This is her last action against me and other users who oppose her ideas. In fact 10:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here I said wikipedia is not propaganda site of Iran's government or pan-iranist blog to reflect only their pov, but User:Kansas Bear answered:"...not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand.", when they are free to say accusations like this to me directly(But my statement is general and is not personal attack to anyone), then I must have right to say, they are mafia gang, otherwise you are clearly taking sides in this dispute.--Orartu (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

They are not a "mafia gang". Are you sure you know what that means? Doc talk 11:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And as an other member of that mafia gang (!) , I ask other users to explain to user Orartu that I'm not poisoning any thing : ( the funny point is that my job in real life is a medical doctor of Toxicology department !!)-Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hysterical. What's up with the "Likely" judgement on the SPI report? Is that incorrect? Doc talk 11:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne said "other editors seem to have been making all the appropriate comments": are these appropriate comments?"...not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand.", other comment of User:Kansas Bear: "You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing. --Orartu (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has made the comments you talk about in this discussion, which is what I was talking about. Read my first sentence. However, the comments you complain about are not personal attacks and do not violate civility. What they do represent, in actual fact, are comments on your behavior. If you do not wish to be called for a battleground mentality, then don't act as if Misplaced Pages is a battleground - it is not. You are bringing this all on yourself. It is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk • contribs) 13:11 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You're losing me, pal. Work with me here. In this edit, it was established that it is  Likely from a technical perspective that Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs) and In fact (talk · contribs) are (in fact ;>) the same user. 1) Am I reading this correctly, and 2) What do Alborz and In have to say about this? Doc talk 12:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean admins are not neutral,, , , and ....have judged very neutrally in last disputes.I know in this case admins are neutral too, but I say User:Kansas Bear and his friends are faulty like me, and they must be blamed.About sockpuppetry investigation,Yes you are reading correctly,two accounts belong to one person. --Orartu (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA is intended primarily as a guide as to how we should guide our own behavior. We're not saying that other editors are following it perfectly, we're saying they are not making gross violations that warrant intervention. Your (Oratu) own conduct -- e.g. calling other editors "mafia" -- is not appropriate. What I suggest is ensuring your own behavior is scrupulously correct. You will then get a much better reaction from other editors. Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• To User:Doc9871 : The checkuser says : same city, but two different buildings. What is bad about it? I deffended myself by stating some examples . (edits that have been done exactly at the very same time, before and after checkuser results)

What would you do if you were me ? How would you feel if after nearly 3 years of editting in Misplaced Pages, somebody claims that you are a sockpuppet ! I feel really bad. Could you understand me ? In fact 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is still open, and best discussed there. Gerardw (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Orartu has also made another personal attack against me, which was deleted by User:SilkTork !!!!!!!!!!!!! She told me :"New Assistance Force. In fact 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. You are not going to achieve anything by pointing-out every instance of what you perceive to be a personal attack. You have lost credibility. I for one just sigh when I see another post from you on this subject. I look at the supposed infraction and then look at what precipitated it. You can't keep accusing others of the very things you're doing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Orartu called me a member of the mafia gang! What do you call this ? What is your suggestion ? She is opposing anybody who has the opposite ideas of hers, anywhere, any how. In fact 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's uncivil. However, I think we've already come to that conclusion. Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be closing this. I don't see anything here to warrant any action regarding Kansas Bear. Dr.K.  20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Powerful User is Rude to Many Users

• Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user called User:Ohnoitsjamie is rude, won't give reasons why he's rude, clams up and won't talk and basically is a bit of a nuisance. I'm fed up with him now. 138.253.48.190 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Where is this happening? Do you have an article or diffs? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IP got reverted by Ohnoitsjamie. A discussion on Jamie's talk page was civil but didn't come to the resolution that IP wanted. I dont see the purpose of this report nor what the IP hopes to get out of it. Ohnoitsjamie's comments were well within WP:CIVIL and the edits were indeed not encyclopedic or really that appropriate. Calling them test edits is a nice way of saying that the IP essentially vandalized the article even if it wasn't their intention to. There isnt anything WP:WQA can do here, especially if Jamie doesnt seem interested in participating.--v/r - TP 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The discussion on the talk page was well within CIVIL which was why I was confused. Without the diffs, I think this is closed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and taking into account that Misplaced Pages is very attractive to people whose brains work in slightly non-standard ways, it seems entirely possible that the 138.* is simply unable to get certain subtle clues in this radio programme (such as the presenter claiming to be "Professor of Ignorance" at Buckingham University), and made this contribution in good faith. I think in cases in which failure to understand humour and irony could explain an editor's behaviour, it is important to communicate very clearly and explicitly, without relying on any overtones, and explaining certain things that one would normally take for granted. (Example: I once had a very good result when I sent an email to an editor who took an obvious self-depreciating April Fools' joke at face value and got outraged. I explained the joke as well as I could, and the editor calmed down immediately.) However, not everybody is able to explain things that most people only understand intuitively, so it's hard to find fault with editors who don't do that. Hans Adler 11:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for a review

I can only see section titles like this as uncivil and tainting any discussion that might occur on the talk page. I attempted to retitle, notifying Bittergrey (talk · contribs) appropriately and it was not received well. I'm not bothering to engage substantively in the actual content of the section because I believe it will be fruitless, all I want is that my user name not be mentioned in an accusing title per WP:TALKNEW. Feedback or suggestions would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe your first dif is incorrect. I believe you're making reference to "This is WLU's article so hands off!" and so that would be this edit. It is rude to state that another editor is showing ownership in a heading, but only if it's not true. We'll wait for the other editor to comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct, I've replaced with the proper diff. Thanks, and will wait to see if Bittergrey comments. If I am genuinely displaying page ownership, the appropriate posting (in my opinion) would be at AN or RFC/U since the talk page isn't going to gather much attention. But as you said, wait for Bittergrey's comments. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, discussion was crippled by WLU. His comments include "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading", he has suggested shunning me , and has made comments to the effect of 'the only good indian is a dead Indian': "...he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned.". Were the real problem one of my editing practices, viewpoints, etc., I would have the option of changing and the problem would go away. WLU doesn't see this as an option.

As shown quite clearly by the diffs in my original comment, WLU has reverted all substantial changes, back to his version. Those two diffs represent 14 revisions/10 users, and 22 revisions/12 users. I could go back further, since this has been going on since February and, thanks to WLU, has spread from it's original location to include multiple articles. Ironically, he tagged me with a 3RR warning when he was the one who gamed 3RR gamed 3RR ( -28 hrs) to force his version.

He has also shown a repeated unwillingness to learn about the subject, coupled with an unwillingness to let others edit. Archives three, four, and five are bloated with examples of this.

If he isn't willing to engage in discussion, the civil thing to do is to get out of the way and let others improve the article. BitterGrey (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I can comment on all of those issues if anyone is interested. Historically discussion sections with BG tend to sprawl (here, here, here, here, the paraphilic infantilism talk page and archives, here, here).

I see the accusation of ownership in a section title as pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:TALKNEW even if it's accurate. If it's getting into a discussion of whether I'm actually exerting page ownership that would seem a question for a RFC/U or other venue. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WLU, an appropriate counterargument would have been to give examples of changes by me that you hadn't reverted. For example, you could have pointed to the change away from your preferred spelling of "behaviour" - and hoped that no one notices that you reflexively reverted my attempt to make the same change. I'm not stating that you are unable to make changes to your version, but that you are unwilling to let others make changes.

As for sprawl, this is the the second round of an issue that started at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) in February, then was spread to multiple unrelated articles by WLU, and then restarted after an RFD Androphilia and gynephilia. At one point, WLU had involved so many pages in his anti-BitterGrey/pro-CAMH effort that he couldn't keep them straight. For example, here he requests than an admin make an edit on his behalf to a locked article, but he makes the request in the discussion page to an article that isn't locked. He retracted with the admission "Oops, wrong page".

I don't ask that Misplaced Pages editors be perfect, but there comes a time when they need to drop old vendettas and let good Wikipedians edit. This used to be a place where anyone can edit. BitterGrey (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that we might have some unbiased eyes on the article, I'm going to reattempt an edit. Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since A) Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not independent and B) it contradicts the APA's widely published consensus document, the Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders, Blanchard's fringe theory must go. In WLU's version, it is discussed in three locations in the article. (Two of those locations contradict each other.) While this edit might seem a no-brainer, WLU has reverted it five times. However, he seems not even to be clear on who's fringe theory it is. BitterGrey (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The original poster's name is no longer in a title on the article talk page, so I don't see a current Wikiquette issue. I'd suggest WP:DRN or WP:RFC for assistance in the content dispute. Gerardw (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct and the fault is mine. I assumed a simple revert and it actually changed the title to remove my username. In this case I consider the issue closed, my apologies. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued incivility and character assaults

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Tamsier has an extensive history of harassment, edit warring, incivility, and a general battleground mentality. The account is now blocked for a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tamsier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Serer people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A editor with a history of ethnic promotion seems to clash with several editors prior to my arrival. Unfortunately I am the current pick. The list is long so i will focus on the recent attacks. What confuses everyone is why they edit the editor and avoid discussing the issues with an edit - inline with policy? But Usually other editors get reported but that usually backfires.

• Name calling filthy little hands from Serer related articles .
• doing work for Berber Master- .
• 'You have also revealed yourself that your lack credibility and integrity - and much more comments here:
• You do nothing for African articles
• Do not destroy this article with you stupid games (where destroy is adding an photo) .
• Been called a vandal as well, but I think i have listed the recent stuff.
• calling others names stupid woman (I have added this to show it is not just me).]

With regard to their claim of Stalking When an editor does things like this: and Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion and edit warred over it! He also nominated a user page for speedy ; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them "people like you always cowar to the muslims" We keep tabs on their habits.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have a conflict of interest (I am a fairly vocal Christian and the reported editor appears to be an ardent Muslim) and so will only say that the editor is certainly not cooperative and the case should be brought-up at WP:ANI rather than here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The reported editor is anti-Islamic. My work is not in religion but as an Africanist. I will take it up at a stronger place because it is not working.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• This editor Halaqah has made my life hell from the moment I came across him on the Serer people and everything to do with Serer. I have been totally drained by this editor who have a campaign of hate against me and is taking it on all the Serer related articles I have edited. I have reported them before but nothing came out of it, indeed my reports where either not taken seriously, trivialised, and on one occastion, it was I who was blocked eventhough I have detailed their disruption for weeks whilst they couldn't be bothered. I have not the energy to be going around looking for diffs here are some Serer related articles where they have pursued me and tried to distroy all articles to do with Serer religion, history and culture. See talk pages and edit summaries of the following Serer related articles:

• Serer people
• Serer religion
• Ama Gôdô Maat
• Serer medieval history to present
• Maat Sine Kumba Ndoffene Famak Joof

etc etc.

Whilst I come here to edit and source and clean up unsourced articles, this editor this editor add tags and insults in the edit summary and is making people leave Wiki (e.g MenAfruka). I want this editor to be barred from editing Serer related articles especially when it concerns Serer religion and Serer medieval history which has a huge chunk detailing Serer resistance to Islamization and Arabization. I have lost total trust and confidence in this editor. Sorry I'm being honest. It would be preferred if other editors edit Serer related articles. Not this one.

Tamsier (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made his life hell. That is almost funny considering all the above. New editors often think someone is out to get them if you dont agree and follow policy. My contributions are free for anyone to check. You will see times when i disagree, when i agree, when i defend (even Tamsier) based on merit. Am I the only editor (or the first editor) you have these problems with? So what is the most likely answer. Misplaced Pages is a Pro-Islamic place or you might be the problem. Can you please point to one incident which is in violation of wiki policy? There is no point citing my edits. I edit Africa, since i came here in 2006. The theories and the blames is just too much to believe.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution