Revision as of 23:46, 24 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

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 me 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) External links available in my talk page

• Answer: There were never any personal attacks, some Harout72 edits were real vandalism and I know perfectly how to use these tools, thank you.

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: You just had to click the link I gave and replace with the real link. Sorry I didn't made that.

The user MisterWiki has been reverting my edits for no good reason, tagging my edits as vandalism

• Answer: Ok, that was not vandalism, but the image failed to WP:NFCC#3, you just had to upload the cropped and lower resolution version on the same name, not another, that's why your file fails to NFCC#3.

...finally I was able to talk some sense into him at the talk page and he left it alone.

• Answer: I asked some guys in the IRC channel about it. MuZemike and many others helped me doing the right decision, and finally you were right ;)

Also note that your alleged misuse of the rollback feature is (at least partially) orthogonal to the issue being discussed here

• Answer: I know I misused the rollback feature but, are you sure the editions I reverted were right?

--MisterWiki talk contribs 23:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions by MisterWiki for no reason

• Answer: I gave you a reason on your talk page.

Comments

Please don't move my comments from your talk page to this page, stripping the internal links in the process. Also note that your alleged misuse of the rollback feature is (at least partially) orthogonal to the issue being discussed here. — æk 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything was alright until Harout72 started to remove redundant categories. Category:Number-one singles in Switzerland, by example, is not a redundant category. Maybe he should need a coaching or something else. He don't rule the Modern Talking-related articles, he is just one more. --MisterWiki talk contribs 00:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course determining from a very limited and flawed English language skills that MisterWiki possesses, suggesting that someone other than him needs a coaching is equally hard to comprehend.--Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, but I try to do the best I can. Do I show your errors sarcastically offending?, I don't want to be a perfect English speaker. Dieter Bohlen wasn't good writing lyrics for his songs, many of them were ununderstandeable. I said: you need a coaching with the politics, something you never heard about, you fly in the space, but there are rules, rules that you are not respecting. And stop your sarcasms. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Offending me? Didn't you call me blind a while ago in this edit of yours?--Harout72 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it, I was very angry with you, in a act of good faith. I removed my statements, and I wrote it all again without offenses. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that you also called my edits vandalism because you got angry with me, when you saw that your uploaded version of the image is not being used in the article. By the way, English is not my mother tongue either, but I don't go around calling other editors vandals. Perhaps, you should learn how to control your anger before you continue using the rollback-features and tagging people with false labels in edit-summaries as well as on their talk-pages.--Harout72 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not tongue, but language :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Harout72, but the image failed the policies, look at this image I uploaded Image:Office 2010.png, it was nominated for deletion because there existed another picture with the same purpose. Then I learned that they were not against me, there were rules. Sorry about calling you vandal (I never called you vandal, just used the wrong button, I just had to use , not , sorry). I was not angry until I saw this post. Sorry, really. :-) But don't treat the others so bad, I felt offended. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen, just take my advice and don't edit-war with editors. If you disagree, try and resolve the problem at the talk-pages, if you see an edit that makes you angry, do not try and edit immediately, just walk away from your computer for a while and get back to it with a clear mind, that's just my advice. One more thing, it is "Mother tongue", you can refer to the same folks when you did while seeking for advice on "You Can Win If You Want". Take care.--Harout72 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, it is Mother tongue, the IRC users also corrected me :) . Sometimes I just think I do the things right, I don't get angry. Sorry pal. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain this?. Look at other examples, let's say, em, Tom's_Diner#The_DNA_remix by example. The cover says dna featuring suzanne vega: tom's diner, I don't see where says The DNA remix too. It's just a technical thing. That's why I reverted your edit. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at the discussion-page of Brother Louie '98.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz's use of minor edit flag

Kikodawgzzz continues to add tags to the White privilege entry (history), including tags for speedy deletion, while using the minor edits flag. He's been warned twice about this on his user talk page, but he has done it twice since then. (Click here for the most recent example.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is outside the scope of Wikiquette. Consider WP:ANI. Intelligentsium 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Brown Hair Girl is stalking me

I would like to report the behaviour of User:BrownHairedGirl. After a differing opinion about Category: Celtic sports clubs this editor/administrator has begun “watching” my edits and has been picking arguments with me over trivial issues. You can read the comments she has left at the above discussion and on my own talk page. These include threatening me with blocking which I think is an abuse of her power as an administrator. Her main gripe is that I have depopulated some categories. While I admit to doing this, all the articles have been placed in more appropriate categories. I have received one negative comment about this, but I believe they just over reacted and had not looked at what I had done properly. There was no onging dispute. I have also received several positive comments about my categorising. Am I been paranoid ? I do not believe I have done anything to warrant such action and I am extremely upset at the way I have been treated. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are overreacting. Asking someone to take something to a discussion page to achieve consensus is very good Wikiquette. Your comments calling her petty and get a life are not good Wikiquette. Gerardw (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.

I found numerous blanked categories when working my way through Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Uncategorized categories and cleaning them up (see the relevant contribs in the related changes list). I checked the histories of blanked categories before deleting them and found the editor who had blanked them out-of-process, and raised it with him on his talk page. It turned out to be the same editor who I (and most other editors) disagreed with in a a CFD debate on Category:Celtic sports clubs, but I hadn't made the connection until Djln raised it later in the following discussion, and Djln's assumption of bad faith is both discourteous and misplaced.

However, now that we are here to discuss wikiquette, may I note that:

• Djln's first contribution to that CFD was one of the rudest I have seen in a long time
• Djln's contribs list shows zero use of edit summaries other than those automatically created by tools
• Two editors posted to Djln's talk page last month to reproach him for incivility,

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson's personal attacks

see here. and here. There are also earlier examples, but this one is over the edge. He has no respect for his fellow editors. His repeated personal attacks and trolling on FAC's and AFD's shows that is an issue that needs to be dealt with.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution