Revision as of 02:06, 4 November 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

Attacks, canvassing and SPAs at AfD/Bose stereo speakers

This one seems to be going to hell in a handcart...

The nominator canvassed at Misplaced Pages Review, in particular with the comment "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors." addressed at a few contributors (myself included) who show no indication of inexperience. Also canvassed another WP editor. SPAs then started to emerge from the woodwork, one of which then silently snuck off the SPA tag from the first, an eyebrow-raising piece of AGF accidentally careless editing. Now I've been accused of being an employee of the company described in the article (incidentally, I'm not), which was struck-through with a snippet of my personal CV posted to the edit summary. That's hardly confidential information, but nor is it a GF action for an editor with only a single mainspace edit outside this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing some diffs with these claims?--SKATER 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Orderly Conductor strongly warned regarding WP:OUTING. Other issues above remain to be discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oblivious Comment - "This is going to hell in a handbasket real fast!" from Left 4 Dead's Bill. Dingley, was that an attempt? LOL. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In Fairford church, Gloucestershire, the great West window (installed before 1517 AD) shows the Day of Judgment in stained glass, with the innocent going to heaven and the guilty going to hell. Among the latter is an old woman in a wheelbarrow, being pushed to her doom by a blue devil. It appears that folks have been going to hell in handcarts for quite some time Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user problems

I feel user 188.192.121.123 has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks at Battle of the Bulge article and Talk:Battle of the Bulge. He was recently blocked for this. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looked through the first couple of talk page edits, and saw no personal attacks. He seems to be challenging sources frequently though...I don't know much about the battle of the bulge to really make a judgment on that please provide diffs of both his disruptive edits and personal attacks.--SKATER 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the quote "so your edits are bullshit because u are lyer" and me being "blind" to be an personal attack on me rather than discussing the topic. Oh well, if you don't find it to be an personal attack I won't push for anything. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that they weren't a personal attack. I just didn't see either of those. this is why Diffs are helpful because they direct me to exactly where I'm looking at and I don't have to go searching, generally why I won't look at anything unless it has them. After seeing both of those, I will warn him for WP:NPA--SKATER 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert talk page postings

I seem to be having difficulty with another editor, User:Skipsievert. Although I have had some contact with him in the past, it has not been extensive. Recently while disputing the contents of the article Social liberalism with User:Vision Thing, I posted a comment on his talk page:

Could you please discuss this subject on the talk page rather then edit-warring. Your added text is irrelevant to the subject and I would like to avoid an RfC which is time-consuming for everyone. It would be helpful if you would read about the topic so that you could make informed contributions. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert then added the following to the talk page:

This comment --^ to another editor sounds like hectoring rhetoric instead of actual constructive editing suggestion. It is noted that you also edit with L.K. J.Q. and Cretog8 on Economics/Social science articles, to I believe a detriment of information... more here I see a distinct pattern of harassment and wikihounding toward users by this group which includes yourself. That is my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on Skipsievert's talk page:

Your comments on another user's talk page

I do not understand your posting on Vision Thing's page. VT had continued to revert irrelevant text to Social liberalism. Because few editors watch this article, disputes have been resolved through RfC/As, as you can see from the history, but these are time-consuming.

For some reason you provided a link to a section of the Economic Project talk page. I did not make any entries to that section and my name is not mentioned there. I did not edit the main Economics article or any of the other articles discussed there. Therefore I request that you strike out your comments which are wholely inaccurate. Out of courtesy I will notify LK, J.Q., and Cretog8 of this posting. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert then replied on my talk page:

Please do not ever

And I mean ever post anything on my user page again. I also noticed all your comments as to the tandem editing team for mainstream. Thanks! skip sievert (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no validity in any of Skipsievert's statements and I resent his comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of those listed above, and one of many attacked by Skipsievert in his edit wars on Economics (he has another set going at Sustainability), I would like to say that Skip's continual disruption is a major problem for all the areas in which he is involved. He needs either to improve his behavior or find somewhere else than Misplaced Pages to push his POV.JQ (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought that username sounded familure. I think 6 ANI's speak for themselves...--SKATER 06:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I perceived a message that The Four Deuces left on my talk page as a pure provocation because he has a habit of warning other editors to stop edit warring even though he is the one who started or actively participates in edit war. -- Vision Thing -- 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not true and could you kindly not make unsubstantiated comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What V.T. is saying above is correct in my opinion, and this points to a larger problem as seen here in canvassing and stirring, with a group that edits a certain way, and contains many members that shadow and canvas each other for mainstream issues (so called) on Misplaced Pages. This group being led by Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin in my opinion, and it is very good at fomenting trouble as seen here., in regard to discussion of a topic ban regarding editing economics articles for Lawrence Khoo. - skip sievert (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted the alert on the Project Economics page because you asked me not to post to your talk page. Let me reply to your comments made there:

I joined the discussion on that page (which you refer to as "tandem editing") following a post by LK on the Paul Krugman talk page where he said "I have started a discussion at the Econ Wikiproject talk page about User:Vision Thing's editing behaviour, which I find greatly troubling." You also joined the discussion, but I have not accused you of "tandem editing".

Your suggestion that I canvassed LK, and JQ and CRETOG8 is incorrect. I notified them that you had accused them of tandem editing after I notified you that I would do that. I did not set up the WQA until after your inflammatory statement on my talk page.

Your suggestion that I am tandem editing is wholly incorrect.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now requested arbitration in this matter and no longer wish to pursue it through WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert personal attacks

I have to ask an advice and comment concerning personal attacks by User:Skipsievert. Yesterday I made my comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination) . My participation on the discussion based on the Artice alerts on the WikiProject:Energy page and as an active member of this project I usually take a part of discussions on project-related articles. On the same day I was attacked by User:Skipsievert who accused me on tandem editing with several other authors (with two of them I never had any contact and with user:Johnfos my last contact ubtil yesterday was almost three month ago, canvassing, and made an indirect threat of topic ban. and . I asked to removed these attacks as baseless on the AfD pages and . AS these request were ignored, I repeated my request at the skip sievert's talk page. The request was removed with an edit summary: Do not post on my talk page. Thanks. You do edit with Johnphos . As the reference was made by skip sievert to the Wikiquette alerts discussion in February this year, I have to say that this was the first, and fortunately until yesterday very few contact I have had with User:Skipsievert. After my posting on 21 February, skip sievert made a blatant accusation saying me to be biased and closed the discussion by himself, which was also noted by user:Bwilkins. As the discussion was closed, there was no possibilities to comment accusations by skip sievert; however, I would like here to invite everybody to check my and Jonhfos discussions (at least on my talk page, all discussions are archived) and edits, and let me knew if there is any violation of policies, guidelines or good practices. After that unpleasant experience I deliberately avoided to be involved with skip sievert (except request to stop his accusation against Johnfos and request to comment the tagging of the WP:Energy articles as a project member. I still belive, the best way would be ignore that kind of editors; however, I believe that every editor has right to express his/her views during discussions like AfD, requested moves; merge proposals etc. I also believe that incivility and personal attacks should be not tolerated. During me than three years period of active editing this is a first time I have to report my fellow editor, and personally it is not very good feeling. I would like to ask any comment from uninvolved editors how I have to deal with the current situation when other editor refuse to remove basedless personal attacks he made. Beagel (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note yet another personal attack at Talk:Howard Scott‎JQ (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparant harassment by User:Wdford

There months ago, I came into an controversy about the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy with User:Wdford. Previously, we also had a not-so-nice encounter at the article Great Sphinx of Giza. After this controversy had led to two threads at the ANI, 1, 2, but achieved no result, I let the issue rest. I think Ancient Egyptian race controversy is one of the worst articles at Misplaced Pages, and that a better article would be quite useful for many readers, but this issue wouldn't be worth any more time of my life. However, then I had another controversial discussion at the ANI, about an article in which I actually hadn't been involved until just now, colloidal silver. The ANI thread is here, and it is quite long. I actually thought that the discussion on the ANI is over now, but then I noticed that Wdford made an edit a the article colloidal silver, of which he presumably know that I would have to object to it and to which I indeed object.

If this does not fall under "Wikihounding" as described at "Misplaced Pages:Harassment", I wouldn't know what does: "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I wouldn't know that Wdford had previously ever participated in any way at the article or in the discussion, and I would find it incredibly hard to believe that he noticed his interest in the topic just now. The problem is: If he aims at discouraging me from editing Misplaced Pages completely, he might be successful, because I see no reason to put up with something like this. Zara1709 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since WQA is a voluntary forum, it's a complete waste of time to open a section on an editor without notifying them of it. Please do so, and then we can continue. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I justifiably feel confused when an editor, with whom I've had troubles previously, shows up at a page about which I am involved in controversial discussion. However, on 2nd though, so far this is not a case of Wikihounding, since so far Wdford has only made one edit, which doesn't qualify as "repeatedly". I've done quite a lot of work at the article, and aside from an anonymous ip-editor who makes full reverts without even an edit summary, diff, the controversy appears to have cleared for now. So, unless a real confrontation does actually arise, we can let this thread rest, and my concerns were premature. Let's hope that there aren't any more troubles.. Zara1709 (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I restate my point. Now Wdford has made a second edit at the article, which I have I again have to oppose. I'll inform him about this thread here. Zara1709 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara1709 has grossly mis-stated the situation. Firstly, I’m not harassing anybody, far less her. Second, the “problems” she cites re Ancient Egyptian race controversy were largely due to her own short fuse – it’s a very contentious topic, and lots of editors took different positions. Not all of us agreed with Zara. The so-called “encounter” at Great Sphinx of Giza was actually the same issue, which happened to overlap both articles.

I noticed the dispute at the Colloidal silver article when it was locked down and reported at ANI, as I maintain a “watch” on that page. I took an interest because I was actually treated with silver for an infected wound when I was a child - with considerable success.

Based on a quick scroll-through of the two history files, it seems I made my first contribution on the talk page on 27 October, while Zara made her first contribution on the talk page only on 31 October – directly after my second contribution. The article was under protection at the time, as I recall, but when the protection was lifted I made my first contribution to the article itself (an innocent addition of valid content) on 31 October. It seems Zara made her first contribution to the article also on 31 October, but about 13 hours after my first contribution. Zara subsequently took ownership of the article, as the history page shows, and rewrote it to her personal satisfaction, including reverting my contribution on a totally invalid basis.

I don’t understand her use of the words “which he presumably knew that I would have to object to” – there was actually no reason at all to object to my contribution. I also don’t understand her use of the words “which I again have to oppose”. Why does she “have to” oppose it – the content is perfectly valid?

As the history pages clearly show, Zara is actually hounding me. I trust the admin’s will deal with her appropriately. Wdford (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you might accidentally have an interest in colloidal silver. From my previous experience I know that it is impossible to discuss more complex issues which involve several POVs with you. For the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy I had done some throughout research and read 4 history books, and I had everyone else at the article agree on a procedure to resolve the issues - but then your topic ban was revoked and you almost immediately had to give me an edit war, even after I had brought several sources that supported my version (the distinction between Eurocentric and Afrocentric views). Instead of bringing in any sources to support your view, you tried to frame me edit warring at the ANI - so I understandably can't assume good faith from your side any more. And here you doing it again. Ok, you tried to explain your interest in the article- but aside from that you are accusing me of several things, apparently to discredit me. This is not the behaviour of somone who has an honest interest in editing the article - this is the behaviour of someone who is on a personal vendetta against me, and I think that I am right in remaining highly suspicious. Zara1709 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

an external-link-related misunderstanding

a misunderstanding resulting from User:Matheisf's addition of his blues-related website to multiple articles (see Special:Contributions/Matheisf) is escalating in bafflingly unpleasant ways: User_talk:Sabrebd#Please_advise and User_talk:Sssoul#Blues.2FCountry_spam. i've tried to explain that adding a link to his own site to multiple articles is not a good way to approach this, and also pointed out better ways to go, but User:Matheisf has unfortunately decided that Sabrebd and i are conspiring against him, wielding authority unfairly, etc:
since User:Matheisf is new, i understand that he isn't aware of how the term "spam" is used around here as shorthand for "linking one's own site to multiple articles, even if the site is noncommercial" (as it's used at WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming), and it seems he's taking umbrage at the use of that term. but pointing the relevant policies out to him isn't malice on anyone's part. and the fact that Sabrebd and i edit some of the same music-related articles and are aware of the same policies on external links is certainly not collusion against anyone.
if someone could convey to User:Matheisf what Misplaced Pages policies apply, what approaches would be constructive, and what the appropriate ways are to have his noncommercial website added to the external-link sections of Misplaced Pages articles, that would be very helpful.
for the record, i also listed this on WP:ELN, but since the communication/civility problems appear to be increasing, i'm moving it to this forum. thanks for any help Sssoul (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the link-additions, and I concur, these links fail the external links guideline, the behaviour is spammy. --Dirk Beetstra 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For you guys to try to make this out to be any kind of fair hearing is a fluke. This has from the outset been nothing but a lynch mob. The threat I just received from Dirk Beestra to blacklist me confirms this. Who do you people think you are? You behave like shameless thugs colluding to ostracize me despite overwhelming evidence to verify that my linking was not only legitimate but advanced the topic. There is no validity to the claims you made against me. I did not spam and the links I placed were relevant. The fact that you are able to act with impunity in this forum with this type of abuse of power is highly disturbing. If the check and balance resolution process is the likes of you,this wonderful idea has been hijacked and utterly lost to primitive fascistic practices.

Judge and jury has already brought the rope out and lined up all your pals as posse. I for one am going out kicking and screaming. Blacklist me if you want. You seemingly can act without basis of fact, and with supreme authority. I refuse to submit to your false accusations. I know when I am being railroaded. Shame on you. --71.169.42.87 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)By Matheisf: --71.169.42.87 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talkpage, have you actually read what we say, have you checked our policies and guidelines? Please discuss further linkadditions (e.g. with a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject) before adding more. --Dirk Beetstra 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism. Jewishness of Jews in Israel.

On the following webpage, it is stated, that the State of Israel does not recognize me as a Jew, when in fact I am: Webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Messianic_Judaism&action=edit. The Israeli High Court has ruled in final ruling that Messianic Jews ARE Jews according to the legally binding definitions of the State of Israel. This final decision has been reported widely in the press and has caused violent aggression against Jews in Israel by other Jews and attempts of discrimination against Messianic Jews on various levels. I feel personally discriminated against by this incorrect article. Please ensure that my rights and the rights of my fellow Jews are duly respected. Discussions obviously were not possible and/or were used to increase the disinformation given in that article.

Thank you very much.

PS: It has also been established by Israeli Law and judicative decision, that the opinions of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are not relevant in this context of the sovereign matters of the State of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charraksus (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WQA is for complaints about improper behaviour by specific editors. What you have looks like a content dispute that needs to be discussed at the talk page of the article in question. If you feel that an editor there has been uncivil and attempts to communicate haven't been helpful, you can bring that up here, but you need to be more specific than you have been in order to accomplish anything. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Continual personal attacks by User:Camelbinky

Camelbinky started a discussion on WT:Policies and guidelines on 14 Oct about Policy description in . I opposed it and the discussion has dragged on ever since with a very bad atmosphere. He has taken a dislike for me and continually alleges bad faith of various types. I contacted him at (he deleted this exchange after this). I have tried to ask him to keep to the topic a few times but with no success.. In WT:Policies and guidelines#Instruct users? he stuck in yet another long spiel and it's just over the top and I'm getting rather fed up with it.

Could somebody try and find some route back from all this hassle please? Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Equazcion has also made comment to Dmcq regarding his non-useful comments and personal attacks. I find it funny Dmcq continues to make the same accusation against me that I and others first made towards him. Dmcq from day one of his response to my proposal was told by several other more veteran editors and administrator's that his post on his view on policy was not consistent with the Community Consensus. Since his original intent of declaring policy to be law and that we shouldnt change the current wording of policy at all did not fly; that he has taken to undoing all that consensus reached each time we try to close out the discussion. Regarding my deleting of his message on my talk page that is well-within my right to do so on my talk page; I read what he had to say, didnt care to continue talking to him, and deleted it; no violation of policies or etiquette there. As for him continually commenting on my posts, he likes to use words like "Camelbinky now wants to..." and "Camelbinky thinks..." and has done so towards Equazcion as well; he has been warned by both of us about wrongly attributing ideas to others and referring to others in the third person. As for my long posts- Equazcion has also told him that there are very good insights in my posts and perhaps Dmcq would benefit from reading them. I dont know of any policy on etiqutte that requires me to be short in my posts. The latest break in creating a new thread was created by me in order to get back on topic and was quickly interepted by Dmcq's disruptive behavior regarding "what Camelbinky wants to do", as I was attempting to get to actual editing of the policy and did not propose anything that Dmcq attempted to put in my mouth, again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no additional comments, I'm awaiting some moderator or whatever it is that happens. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens here is that whoever feels they have something to say about the problem says it -- in this case that's me, a non-admin, and I hope you're okay with that. In any case, reading through this exchange, the first thing that strikes me is that nearly every post by Camelbinky is three times as long as it needs to be -- you should realize that even editors well disposed to your message will lose patience with you if your messages waste their time. The second thing is that this exchange started off reasonably civil but gradually deteriorated as a result of both parties losing patience with each other and getting snappish. My serious suggestion, though, is for both of you to drop it -- you have both surely realized that policy pages can't be changed if there is any resistance, and in this case there is clearly enough resistance from other parties to prevent any change, so the whole business is really a waste of time for both of you. Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of preparing a statement in which I ran down the situation, but then I saw this comment from Looie. I'm an involved party, by the way, though I entered the picture a bit later. I think Looie is right, at least in that the most constructive way to handle this would be for both parties to walk away from it. We could point fingers about who started it and who made a comment that could be considered a personal attack, but the bottom line is that right now both parties are too frustrated with the situation and with each other to really be helpful to the policy page. Whatever discussion still needs to happen there will go more smoothly with neither of them present, in my opinion. Sorry, but it's the truth... Equazcion (talk) 23:19, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I am totally completely fine with both Dmcq and myself being unofficially "banned" from the talk period while others hash out wording. If either of us have something to contribute it can be taken to someone who shares similar views and they can decide what to do with whatever point the editor has. I even tried earlier to voluntarily step aside but was drawn back in with WhatamIdoing and Dmcq's comments stating (erroneously) what I did and didnt want to do, and with questions being poised directly to me, as if I was the only one in the discussion who could answer them (which I wasnt, and Equazcion is a much better spokesman).

I would like to understand, however, what any of this has to do with the use of this noticeboard; the diffs that Dmcq provides regarding "proof" of my "uncivil" activities in my opinion provide no proof of anything. In my talk page discussion that he provides I was more than civil in regards to his concern and was in the right when I said I wouldnt discuss it with him and would just walk away. Long posts are not uncivil, nor are they against Misplaced Pages policy, I have lots to say, I dont have to be succinct though it may help, for that I apologize, but it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Unless I am missing something I'd like this closed out "resolved" on the basis that this is nothing more than a content dispute and beyond the scope of this noticeboard.Camelbinky (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to point that out myself, that Dmcq claims personal attacks, yet hasn't provided diffs. However that's secondary to the overall situation. There may not have actually been personal attacks, but there is still a difficult situation at hand that can be resolved here at WQA just as well. If you both state here your agreement to voluntarily keep off the policy and talk page for WP:POLICY, I think then we could mark this resolved. If not then we should continue here, I think. The matter could use some dispute resolution outside the policy talk page. Equazcion (talk) 00:48, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Dmcq has not claimed "personal attacks". He claimed "very bad atmosphere", "dislike", and allegations of "various types of bad faith". I don't think his complaints are entirely unreasonable, but I also don't think that the dispute is dramatically worse than the typical dispute related to a major policy re-write. Being happy while working on policy pages (unfortunately) requires an unusually thick skin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is the section header he chose, "Continual personal attacks by User:Camelbinky"... Equazcion (talk) 01:24, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I'm walking away regardless of what Dmcq does. If he decides to stay at that page I think it would be "unfair" to me as it then makes it seem that one side has more of a consensus than the other. This is my final post on this matter, I consider it resolved and have nothing more to say here and will remove it from my watchlist.Camelbinky (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's some diffs as Equazcion requested:

Where I asked him for a reference to the village pump discussion which he said justified his proposal. He gave no reference. 'At first your statements were quaint and cute in a naive way, now they seriously are annoying.' 'if you dont have anything to say, dont say anything at all"'

Where he accused me of bad faith for discussing something similar on WT:IAR whereas he had explicitly contacted people on their user pages.

'You are either ignorant or stupid'

'I would like to start over and allow people to comment properly without Dmcq ranting about laws that dont exist, if he'd be kind enough to back off perhaps we can archive the above discussions and start over without his interference of bringing up red herrings'

'I would like to give you good faith that you perhaps had not read that post where I explained that, but given your actions here ever since I cant and will chalk it up to another attempt of attacking me instead of writing anything that supports your "ideas"'

'arguing with small-minded people is getting annoying'

'I think you are over-your-head in this discussion and it really doesnt matter what you say anymore.'

'How about you have an independent thought about what you do and dont want in here,'

'Dmcq you have been obstructionist since day one when I started this discussion', 'Equazcion has been more than patient in keeping this on topic despite your interuptions and disruption'

So Equazcion didn't see anything amiss, I guess from what WhatamIdoing said that this sort of thing is normal fare. I don't think that is good. Civility should be adhered to better I believe. Anyway wIth Camelbinky not reraising his proposals and Equazcion looks resigned to not sticking about blocking in the leader I'm pretty happy with the page. I guess it'll be changed radically in another short while but most of the previous incarnations I've seen have been quite reasonable as far as I'm concerned. So there is no strong reason to keep me on that page and I'm happy to also leave it and that leaves the main business of this alert closed I guess.

I'd particularly like to avoid provoking this sort of thing again as it is a lot of heat with very little light and definitely not constructive. If anyone cares to give me a pointer to advice about avoiding such trouble I'd be grateful. I don't mind if it is a rather personal if it is useful. Dmcq (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I could give you some pointers, Dmcq, but you probably meant from an uninvolved party. Since both parties that were the subject of this WQA have agreed to remain off the policy page and its talk page, the matter appears to be resolved. I'd probably be more comfortable if a time period were explicitly set though. 6 months is my rather arbitrary suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 02:50, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing to keep me there. That is quite different. You never did address any of my points against your proposal that I know of, but at least you acknowledge when there is substantial lack of consensus. Dmcq (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not bring the content dispute to this page. Are you agreeing to stay off the page and its talk page, or are you just saying you won't participate there until the next time you feel the need? Because the latter doesn't really provide any resolution to this WQA. Equazcion (talk) 03:50, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The latter. I will not go on it unless I feel it is necessary. Dmcq (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we haven't really accomplished anything here. Equazcion (talk) 03:56, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

You haven't. Not we haven't. Dmcq (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly has anyone here accomplished, then? I don't see any reason why tempers shouldn't continue to flare on the page in question. Equazcion (talk) 04:04, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to walk away, hoping this would then just drop. I, however cant, now that I have seen more blatant misrepresentation from Dmcq. That is not being uncivil to say that, because it is fact. In his first diff, he puts my quotes out of context, the quote where I say "if you have nothing nice to say dont say anything" was not directed at him, I was saying that "I" wouldnt say anything because I no longer had anything nice to say, I was being civil by holding my tongue. In his third diff he puts a quote that I call him stupid, that is nowhere in the diff, I didnt call him stupid or ignorant or use either word in the diff he provides; that's more than him misrepresenting, that's an outright lie. On the diff where he explains it is to show- Where he accused me of bad faith for discussing something similar on WT:IAR whereas he had explicitly contacted people on their user pages" I have explained to him at least three times that I contacted Kim Bruning after she had already posted in opposition to him on that talk page, I contacted her in order to see what she would be in favor of, that is neither uncivil nor is it forum shopping as he was doing by going to IAR. He puts a diff in which he says I refused to answer his question and provide citation for what I stated; how is that uncivil? Again, I dont have to answer any question I dont want to, and I dont have to provide citations to back up what I say. In his concluding statement he states "Anyway wIth Camelbinky not reraising his proposals and Equazcion looks resigned to not sticking about blocking in the leader", and he has repeatedly stated that my proposal is to put blocking in the lead, if you check the history of the page and check the talk page, I never endorsed blocking in the lead, and Dmcq has repeatedly stated that I want to do things that I never said I wanted to do. It is my personal opinion (which may sound uncivil and not giving good faith to some, but it is still my right to say) that Dmcq's entire mission with this is to censor me and get me off the talk page, per his comment responding to Equazcion stating that nothing was accomplished here, Dmcq responded with "You haven't. Not we haven't."; since the only thing accomplished here was me pulling myself off the talk page, he must be implying that that was something he wanted accomplished. Is this the point of this forum to censor individuals and allow disagreements to be won by eliminating the opposition? Everytime on the talk page a consensus was reached Dmcq would bring back up the problem. A consensus does not require unanimity, and me being blunt and honest is not being uncivil. All the diffs he provides shows I am blunt and honest, not that I lie, threaten, or insult. My opinions are my own and censorship is not the intent of our policies on "civility".Camelbinky (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record the thing I wanted accomplished, my "proposal", was in fact incorporated and is still there, and does not seem to be a matter under the current controversy going on.Camelbinky (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

after reading through diffs on both sides, I'm of the opinion that you both need to walk away from this. --King Öomie 04:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that Dmcq is taking advantage of Camelbinky's willingness to voluntarily withdraw, and considers this an accomplishment. I would say it should be a withdrawal of both parties, as now 4 people to comment here have agreed on. Since Dmcq was the one to seek the council of WQA, it would behoove him to heed its recommendations. Equazcion (talk) 07:09, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This looks to me like the usual business of people saying an ill of others that is true of themselves. Equazcion has been trying to stick in something about blocking into the leader despite other editors objections. Here is an example of ignoring my objections . And here by the way is Camelbinky putting Equazcion's proposal with blocking into the leader . I accept now that Camelbinky does not support putting blocking in the leader even though he stuck it in. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're implying that I would re-insert that once you were gone, I wouldn't since you're not the only one against that line. If you were my the only obstacle the line would already be there. This is about a feud between you and Camelbinky that's become disruptive. You came here asking for advice, and the advice you got was to walk away. I don't see that actually happening unless a time period is spelled out. Does anyone have suggestions? Equazcion (talk) 17:00, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This alert is a complaint about civility made by me against Camelbinky. If you want to discuss disruption then raise a different alert. And mention your own behaviour keeping on and on on trying to insert your pet idea into a policy even though a number of other editors opposed it. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway driving Camelbinky away with this alert was not my intention. What I wanted was for him to stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the subject. If he thinks I'm slandering him because I think he has a particular point of view I would like him to just say I'm wrong and what his view actually is. I feel that doing something like that would solve the problem but just going away is denying the problem is liable to lead Camelbinky into making the same mistakes again. Camelbinky - it's not some war where you work with your friends to destroy enemies. Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, I put reverted Slimvirgin not because I supported the statement he/she took out, I reverted him/her because Slimvirgin had not posted a reason, had not talked at all in the talk page, and made the revert of material that had already been agreed to; including by you who said "fine, since this page changes every few months anyways". Again you put words in my mouth and assume my what my actions mean. What mistake do you think I would make again and who do you think you are to think you need to police me, teach me a lesson, or control me? Actually yes this is a war in a figurative meaning, regarding the very soul of Misplaced Pages. You have attempted to add wording that makes policies seem to be laws and strictly enforced; as the consensus in the talk page and everywhere else along with how Misplaced Pages works, we have shown you that your views are wrong. You state that I should tell you that you are wrong and what my views are. I have and you've accused me of uncivil behavior. You are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. My views are simple- policies are not laws, IAR and consensus trumps everything. I have stated that many many many times. What dont you understand of the 100 times I've said that before? You seem to think I should not be allowed to contribute because I do something wrong. What is it that I do wrong? My opinions arent yours? I stick up for myself? I point out you are wrong? I point out when you misrepresent me or other people? I point out when you make no sense? I make long posts? I make analogies that you cant understand but others have mentioned they understand and thought they were insightful? None of that is uncivil nor do I have to change that. What do you want to accomplish with this, to "reform" me? This isnt the place, nor could anyone here if they wanted to, its a non-binding forum; and I'm a pretty unchanging person. So if you want some "punishment" or me to change my ways, not going to happen, at least not here. Just make the pledge I made to not interfere with that particular page or talk page. What are you scared of, I made that pledge. But it was voluntary and yes, if you go back and make changes I dont like, I'll be there quick as a whistle if Equazcion doesnt stop you first. You dont get your way just because I leave, which again seems to be what you want. Because I dont have to act in a manner you "like", because I have fundamental values opposite to your views on Misplaced Pages so that just wont happen.Camelbinky (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have asked for you to state what your preferred form of words were rather than what your views were. When I quoted the words you originally said you wanted in you said you didn't want them, you inserted a line about blocking into the leader but attacked me when I said you wanted the sentence in. I am unable to make sense of what you say you want but at least I can be pro, anti or neutral about the words you say you want inserted. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at that one edit where he did replace the blocking statement, you'll notice many other things were replaced in that edit too. Along with his edit summary, it should be somewhat clear that Camelbinky didn't necessarily have any feelings about mention of blocking, but rather with the fact that a single user had made a blanket removal of disputed material without contributing to the talk page discussion. Equazcion (talk) 00:07, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can count my saying that I could wait for somebody else to remove it as agreement it was a good idea. Sticking it into a policy without a reasonably full consensus certainly indicates more than passive agreement to me. which is one of the more reasonable texts in reply to WhatamIdoing also being confused by it all seems to indicate the same thing. SlimVirgin was restoring it to what it was like previously and other editors besides me had complained about the new text. Anyway you can see why it can be helpful to write down the words one would really like rather than words one doesn't agree with or fully agree or whatever it is with. Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq I dont have any preferred "form of words" because I understand and respect that Misplaced Pages is a consensus driven forum and is the amalgumation of the opinions and views of the entire Community. It wouldnt be beneficial of me to speak in terms other than broad views that I know are shared by the majority of other editors I've encountered in my over 3 or 4 years (or longer as I was an IP for quite awhile before Camelbinky). You want "words" that you can fight; but since I dont give you words to fight against you seem to make generalizations and assume things that you dont like and attribute them to me so you can "fight" against something. That's what pisses people off; you jump to conclusions and read into things. You've done that to me and I call you out on it, that pisses you off more. Equazcion called you out on it when you did it to him as well. Stop trying to "make sense" of what others want and politely state what your views and philosophy is and stop worrying about what others say, do, or think. Consensus often comes through compromise and in a compromise you dont always get "your words" put in. You seem to think that it must be your words or the opposition's words and its a zero-sum game (I dont know if you know the concept of a zero-sum game, I can explain on my talk page if you need). Nobody has to explain to you what they think or what words they would like in a perfect world where they are dictator; that's just not conducive to compromise and making a consensus. I dont debate they way you want me to, that's not being uncivil, that's how life is; not everyone will want to argue under your terms; I have my own way of debating and you dont have to conform to that style and I dont expect you to, mine is the way I learned at the specific colleges I have attended as an undergrad and graduate student/TA and is not the preferred way of everyone. Misplaced Pages is open, free-spirited, and multi-cultural; this is bound to happen to you alot; as I suggested to you before, go to the OR/N, RS/N, various Village Pumps, and other noticeboards and watch and contribute (where your views would be helpful) and see what others say, how they say it, what consensus' tend to happen and how. I truly think you may learn something useful. I'm not saying your stupid regarding how Misplaced Pages works, I think this would be beneficial to you; in fact I think you are extremely intelligent, but lack some of the refining Misplaced Pages knowledge that hands-on application of policies and guidelines at noticeboards can give you. Yes, you will be seeing me at those boards ALOT, you'll have to live with me and as User:Blueboar, Equazcion, and many others there can tell you we dont always agree but we dont generally argue either and minority opinions are not always listened to or even responded to and sometimes minority opinions win over popular ones; so its easy to get upset. I'm trying to help you out and point out ways for you to be constructive, I hope you dont see this as being "uncivil".Camelbinky (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of edit conflict but I've replied to Equazcion above saying why I think stating some form of words is a good idea. Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, just because you and What disagree with the wording doesnt mean we didnt have a "reasonable consensus" on including them. Both you and What were resigned to letting it stand before Slimvirgin came by. Slimvirgin didnt bother reading the talk page and/or commenting there. So I reverted him. I dont have to state what I believe in exact words to you, and it wont ever happen. That's not being uncivil.Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I said I could wait because it was obvious to me that other editors would come along and remove it and they could possibly reason with you better. You put that in against WhatamIdoing, Dank and SlimVirgin whatever about me. I agree you don't have to say what you want in any sort of way I can understand. What I was complaining about as not civil is given by my list of diffs above. I'm saying that if you could provide some form of words it would help prevent misunderstandings. How about trying harder to be clear? It is very difficult when you actually do something and then say I'm slandering you for saying you wanted to do it. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil

It seems like there's a general reluctance on the part of editors to discuss improving the article in a climate of civility, and devoid of personal attacks, despite my repeated requests. I could use another uninvolved editor, preferably one with some experience and knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, to opine on whether WP:Civil and WP:NPA have to be respected or whether they can be ignored at will -- because I sense that building consensus will be very difficult otherwise.

There's too much writing about other editors, historical reviews of other editors' behaviors, and finger-pointing -- but not enough focus on the issue at hand (a content dispute).

Rather than getting better, it is getting worse. -- Rico 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary euthanasia

Why this user: 4twenty42o is demanding that my editions should be discussed before I published them, but when I ask for the same for the editions of another it does not apply??

ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE should be discussed here for CONSENSUS. If you continue to edit war and POV push you may find yourself unable to edit. Please stop now.

— user 4twenty42o, 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I demand the SAME TREATMENT GIVEN TO EVERYBODY, or do you prefer to violate the Constitution and the International Law, discriminating me??. If my editions need consensus to be published then also the editions made by the others, for example the edition made by Ratel on the same issue. Therefore: let us discuss.

— user at 190.25.80.226, 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.80.226 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 November 2009

(Diffs for the two quoted comments are edit by 4twenty42o and reply by 190.25.80.226) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The user 4twenty42o is describing proper procedures that do apply for all editors.

Your particular edits have been disputed; therefore you should discuss them for consensus before restoring them to the main page. This part of how we manage wikipedia. Have a look in particular at the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle. It is recommended for all editors. It works like this.

• First, you go ahead and make a change that you consider appropriate. You've done this first step.
• Second, wait and see if someone reverts it. That has now occurred also.
• Third, discuss with the editor who reverted your proposed change to try and reach consensus. This is what you should do now.

Note that you have no automatic right to insist that the disputed edit must remain in place while it is discussed. Just editing it back again without discussion is likely to be taken as Edit Warring, which is likely to cause problems and administrator interventions. The normal best practice after a first attempt has been reverted is to go ahead and try to achieve a consensus on your proposed change before you try to restore your reverted addition. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this particular noticeboard really. How was I rude or uncivil? - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the editor who filed this complaint is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages -- I don't see any need for you to be concerned at this point. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

k - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, my initial response above was addressed to the editor using IP address 190.25.80.226, who is apparently unaware of the normal conventions here. I was just about to add an alert to the talk page of 4twenty42o to let him know this alert was here; glad to see that isn't needed now. The matter seems well in hand so far, both here and at the disputed page. If everyone takes care with WP:3RR and WP:NEWCOMER and WP:AGF I think it will all be fine. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One little suggestion for added politeness. I notice some words in capitals in both the posts above. Since this is often considered to be "shouting" it is best to avoid them when conversing with other editors. See WP:TPG for more info. (I guess these kinds of linking caps are okay! ;-)--Slp1 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood and noted . However the intended effect was not to shout but more to illustrate after several "misunderstood" edits and reversions, that edit warring and wikilawyering is not going to get the editor anywhere. We are still having this discussion on the article talk. I honestly do not believe that the editor has much command of the English language, which is obviously frustrating the hell out of me. But as I said understood and noted. I will endeavor to be more polite. :) - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps 4twenty42o thinks so because he believed that the existing difference between something legal and something not punishable, could not be a real and a legal difference, but my bad wording. Whathever, we are already in the discussion there on the article talk. 190.25.80.226 (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

-smh-... - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vicious Personal Attacks by Dubbawubba

I have moved this section to WP:ANI#Vicious Personal Attacks by Dubbawubba (moved from WQA). WQA is not the right place for problems that require immediate admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary Software

On the Talk:Proprietary Software page, User:Hervegirod and User:Jimmi Hugh got into a cat fight. Hervegirod said before the cat fight had started that he knew he was entering a heated debate, and on his talk page, I read that he likes to listen to metal rock music or something stupid like that, and he sounds a bit racy, and I think User:Jimmi Hugh is a girl because of the way they spell their name. Here's a link to User:Hervegirod and I'll let an administrator check him out. I didn't check Jimmi Hugh out, so I could be biased, but FYI, Hervegirod was asking for it!

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution