Revision as of 21:34, 12 July 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 alerts

ImDisk

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

Reverting good faith edits as alleged vandalism is not helpful. Removing a user talk section answering a question is not helpful. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing talk page messages is a moot point here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I copied the content to the talk page. And I added the announced but actually missing "deletion sorting" tags to the relevant pages. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good faith edit? You damaged the article and only reason you gave for doing so is that "it is notable" which is not true, per Misplaced Pages:Notability. That fits the bill for vandalism. As for not responding to article talk page messages, Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition. After all, Misplaced Pages is not an advertisement platform. Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when he claimed notability, I also told him about Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion: A lot of google hits. He just used the famous fallacious statement of "That's only a guideline or essay!"

Finally, I have nominated ImDisk for deletion but 89.204.137.229 has used this WQA case to comment on me in the AfD. (See ). So, what happened to Comment on content, not on the contributor? Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If these are the edits in question then clearly it's not vandalism. They may diminish the article in your eyes, but that doesn't make it vandalism. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was the alleged vandalism. I proposed the removal of the stub tags days before on the talk page. FleetCommand edited this very short talk page after my proposal, therefore he can't have missed it.  For a fresh case of dubious edit comments see , a neutral info related to an AfD is no "personal attack" in my book. As an unregistered user I'm not supposed to know how to fix announced but actually missing "deletion sorting" tags, or how to add missing AfD notes on the talk pages of three main editors for ImDisk, or how to report false accusations in edit histories short before an AfD. If FleetCommand ever tried a similar approach with users who don't know how to fight it things could get ugly. –89.204.137.160 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you brought up these issues directly with FleetCommand directly? IP or registered new users are not expected to know how things work, but new editors do not generally find their way to AFD and noticeboard discussions, either. Are you claiming to be new around here, or have you been around a while? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See above, he removed an answer from his talk page, and I put the WP:WQA note on his page. Obviously I'm no new user: I picked right to vanish five years ago after a deletion not following deletion policy of a bunch of icons created and uploaded by me (later restored, but I intentionally randomized my en:w:+m:+ mediazilla: passwords beyond repair). That is actually my point, a new user would never find that FleetCommand now managed to accuse an innocent registered user of being my WP:SOCK master, resulting in a week long block for a dynamic IP I didn't get today. –89.204.137.160 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, needed more coffee. I think that DeCausa is correct that the edit was not vandalism. But given this, I'm not sure we need to do anything further at this time. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block him. I do not have such power. I merely reported him; though the case against him was quite clear-cut. Furthermore, if he has used the right to vanish, then he has no right to edit Misplaced Pages again. As for his edit not being vandalism, I am ready to forfeit my position on it, but his edit was not a good-faith attempt of a constructive edit too. He simply refuses to acknowledge Misplaced Pages:Notability. Fleet Command (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I said you blocked him. In regard to VANISH, it's a guideline, and if you want to pursue that angle, and I think that suggests bringing the issue up with arbcom. This has been to SPI, you've recently been advised regarding edit summaries, the AFD is proceeding, and I appreciate your willingness to forfeit the characterization in the edit summary, so I just think we're done here, that's all. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ACK, I had my venting, and "told" (edit history) the innocent user that it wasn't his fault. And if you ever figure out who "invented" the most used MediaWiki template... –89.204.153.230 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

AnnihilatorHeli

• AnnihilatorHeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could somebody with more tact than I have a word with new user AnnihilatorHeli. All edits made on articles have been undone. Wanting to delete pages and they way he communicates on other editor's talk pages are inappropriate. Bgwhite (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT [[
2. REDIRECT Target page name

]]

Personal attacks and "outing" threats continue after debate has ended

The following one time or new users have all launched and continue to launch personal attacks on me and other users for having edited the article mentioned below. There is a legal sounding notice on LegalEagleUSA user page threatening those who will edit or reverse any of their contributions on Misplaced Pages and he/she has attacked me and another user in a long rant on this page here

Also, the following users joined in the Ad Hominem attacks on the proposed deletion page and followed me around to other debates to continue the harassment:

Mr. Brown

Alteran1

66.65.66.144, now known as ElizabethCB123,

These and MANY other new users have only contributed to the same one article and have personally attacked me even after being warned by several editors to stop. There is currently a threat to expose my identity (which they believe they know) on Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate an experienced editor or administrator looking into these users behavior and history of abuse towards me and others since the abuse shows no signs of stopping even after I had moved on from the debate, stopped responding to them, and moved on from the article in question. These accusations are here.

Thank you!Aa1232011 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I told LegalEagleUSA not to threaten to out, and that it was a personal attack. I have not looked for other potential harassment. Jesanj (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I took Jesanj (talk) advisement to strike a comment and apologized to you on the noted page. However, please be thoughtful before deleting entire sections of articles and/or removing a single person's name from numerous articles without attempts of improving their inclusion. I suspect this (at least in my case despite knowing who you are) is the red flag others have noticed from your edit history. As for new users, anyone can be an editor. No need to finger point as you are also new to Misplaced Pages and began your edit history with Marisol Deluna. Not to worry, I will not "out" you on WP and remain civil. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your threats of "outing" whoever you have in mind are not only slander but also breaking Wikipedias rules, which I've notcied you don't mind doing. I began my editing history with several other articles at least two months before editing Deluna's article. When I signed on for an account (which I did because I was about to do major edits as opposed to a series of minor ones) all my previous edits did not register in my history. Second, I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase for citations on an obscure personality when their inclusion in other articles is blatatly undue, incorrect, or can't be proven anywhere because it is untrue. Such as Deluna's inclusion in articles saying she was an Argentine and French amongst MANY other inaccuracies. You say "anyone can be an editor" but then attack me for doing just that? You say "no need to finger point" and then you point your finger at me and accuse me of blatant nonsense like you knowing my identity? You say in your page that personal attacks against you will be reported and then go on to canvas several other editors with your conspiracy theories, personal attacks on me, write a long rambling accusation against me and another editor in Deluna's talk page, and then pretend it's personal because you "know" who I am? Sorry, you crossed civility many, many, contributions ago!Aa1232011 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, when I made the comment not to "Finger point", it was in reference to "new users" on Misplaced Pages- As your edit history shows that you are also a "new user". Please do not take this out of context. You have asked editors to review your history. If so, to make a fully determined discovery- Under what user name or IP Address other than Aa1232011 (talk) did you edit from before Aa1232011 (talk) as this would show your fully claimed history?

Additionally, I understand after it was pointed out to me that I had not followed Misplaced Pages rules on "Outing" as previously mentioned. However "Slander" by definition has not been committed. This is a common misuse of a legal term. Being "Libel" would apply if I were to post your name and I had mistaken your identity which caused you harm. I promised not to expose anyone on Misplaced Pages, so this is not an issue.

Question: Who is the other editor that I went on a long ramble "accusation" about? I responded to an editor and later took his advise. Please do not misrepresent my postings here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Marisol_Deluna

One last comment- I looked at the edit history about Ms. Deluna in reference to being American. She is. Under the article about "French people" she was noted as an "Expat" not as a naturalized citizen. She has been an expat. The same in Argentina and may have her papers in order for dual citizenship. I do not know, yet another editor might. Citations would have been helpful instead of complete removal of her from articles and whole sections of the article about her. I am not accusing you of being wrong. Simply it would have been helpful to seek citations first. I am proposing a truce as it is counter productive to quarrel. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As a reminder, Wikipedias policy for living persons is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." so there was no need to delay the process where there are no originating sources. The mention in a "notable expatriates" section alongside household names of a much more renowned caliber and who can be easily verified to have been living in France for years through many published reports was (with all due respect) undue since there are no third party citations for her at all and even now, her notability is in question due to lack of coverage from enough varied independent sources not related to her. As for Argentina: their law states That's why first you find reference articles, THEN you add the information on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise every article would be full of incorrect information for years. But if you or anyone else can find third party PUBLISHED reports BEFORE you add info (the way Misplaced Pages works) I don't see why not do that instead. Finally, your accusations here have not been striked through, deleted, or completely recanted even after three editors have told you they are in the wrong place, against Misplaced Pages's policy, and uncourteous. I would appreciate some action from your part on this matter. Thank you.Aa1232011 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

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.

Orangemarlin curses at this editor who had posted a civil comment on Orangemarlin's talk page. I belive Orangemarlin has been previously asked not to do this. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is terrible. Next thing you know, he'll accuse editors of having Asperger's. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck. I swear????? And dammit Boris, I had the diff for the asperger's accusation from Cla69 all ready to go. You beat me to it. Do you notice how Cla69 continually stalks my page? I think he's got a hard on for me. OrangeMarlin 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Not that it's an ideal reaction, but even here at WQA you will have trouble finding anyone interested in such a trifle nowadays. I would like to ask you not to waste other editors' time with frivolous reports against your enemies. Just as a precaution in case later on someone wants to mention that you have been asked not to do it. Hans Adler 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'm gobsmacked. OrangeMarlin 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome in a Technicolor world. ;) Hans Adler 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And this is how some Wikipedians and admins continue to handle "minor" incivility by an editor who is continuously disrespectful and it will continue to escalate because the editor feels more and more free to push the limits. Swearing is about reaction, and when you dont get reaction from "minor" swearing it will continue to escalate to further namecalling and insults. And as an editor with Asperger's I find it insulting and extremely saddening to find someone like Hans Adler whom I respect to be using it as a joke. I respectfully would request an apology.Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum- Sorry, did not see that it was someone commenting prior to Hans joining, but still saddened by Hans' calling this frivolous. Would still like an apology from Short Brigade, but I wont hold my breath.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You may know that I am not exactly a friend of OM. It is frivolous in the sense that (1) the infraction is very minor compared to some of the things OM has got away with in the past, and (2) the report is clearly motivated by some recent negative interaction between Cla68 and OM, rather than Cla68's desire to help the project. More importantly, for me, as far as I can tell OM has been on his best behaviour recently (yes, it's relative), so I am not going to watch while some clown is trying to poke him with a stick. Hans Adler 02:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your grasp of sarcasm and irony means I might have to retract my comment about the lack of sense of humor amongst Germans. OrangeMarlin 02:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is frivolous. And you obviously wasted no time in reading the link. Oh, you didn't. It was Cla69, who has been wanted to bang me for years, who accused editors of having Aspergers. Wait, let me get that accurate, only editors who disagree with Cla69 have Aspergers. In other words, get your facts right.OrangeMarlin 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you click the link? I was quoting Cla68's words back to him. For the record I was appalled that Cla68 considered accusing someone of having Asperger's to be a way to lob an insult. (Admittedly my sensitivity to this issue may be affected by the fact that I have a cousin who is toward the high-functioning end of ASD.) I do apologize and assure you no offense was intended. I wonder if Cla68 will apologize as well for the original jab; he so far has declined to do so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see some attacking the messenger going on here, but the most important take away is that an uninvolved editor, Camelbinky, has confirmed that Orangemarlin's edit summary was out of line. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And do you have the decency to apologize for your implied slur against those with Asperger's? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And when are you going to apologize for accusing people of having Asperger's? You don't have the guts to do so. And no, I will not fuck you, despite your continued obsession with me. OrangeMarlin 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept Short's apology for the manner in which his link was placed in this discussion and I in turn apologize for not clicking it in the haste of being upset. However for Orangmarlin, you have proven your manner is that of an ass and rude and disrespectful for how you responded to me and your continual "no I will not fuck you" to other editors. Cla68- dont use me to justify what you do or say, Hans Adler is right about Orangemarlin's continued ass-iness (Orange–I too can swear) and eventually something will be done, you have to pick your battles, let him stick Orange foot in his mouth some more. And yes you should make a public apology for the asperger's comment.Camelbinky (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll explain to you what I meant by the comment on your user page. As for Orangemarlin, the behavior needs to stop. He has been encouraged to do so numerous times by several editors. I will be following up to make sure that it stops. If you would like to follow what takes place, please put his and my user talk page on your watch list. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You Binky. Wow, I'm impressed you can swear. Hopefully, your mommy doesn't wash out your mouth. LOL. Seriously dude, I don't care what you think. Kiss kiss. OrangeMarlin 05:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, I missed Cla69's childish threats. You really can't fuck me dude. I'm not into you. Your stalking me is creepy. Very creepy. OrangeMarlin 05:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen an editor so eager to increase the number of people watching his talk page.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OM doesn't have a history of making up stuff like what is currently on his talk page, and it's entirely consistent with his editing. I would consider it extremely inappropriate to continue this thread under the circumstances. Basic human decency requires that we cut him a lot of slack now. Hans Adler 10:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second Hans, I was once blocked for stating on an editor's talk page that User:__ "stalks me too, I find his stalking to be creepy, he is a stalker". And yet here is Orangemarlin stating the same thing and nothing happens to him? His continued assiness is ok? Really?! "You really cant fuck me dude", come on! That is UNACCEPTABLE!Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Camelbinky, have you looked at Orangemarlin's talk page? Under the circumstances, do you actually think anything we do is going to achieve anything useful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I did just read it, but given that he flamed out and was even more irrational with hatred and rudeness, I think a watchful eye should be given to see if he returns after a short while even more disgruntled or resorts to sockpuppetry. I frankly dont believe he warrents AGF anymore after the way he "retired".Camelbinky (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ and unnecessarily impolite measures to make a point

• Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Windows Home Server 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of Rozen Maiden characters‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Δ resolves to unnecessarily impolite measures to make his point in Misplaced Pages. In Windows Home Server 2011, a user removed File:Windows Home Server logo.svg from the article; I contested the removal and immediately fixed the issue. However, Δ sent me a level 3 warning and begun an edit warring in the article over a non-existent issue! This is very impolite. What happened to WP:BRD, WP:AGF and WP:DTTR?

This is not his only instance of unnecessary impertinence. A day before, I contested the removal of images in List of Rozen Maiden characters‎, he resolved to edit warring. Even when three other editors objected, he kept reverting to the limit of WP:3RR. Someone please tell me, what makes this guy the law and the rest of Misplaced Pages criminals? Why he does not assume good faith? Why he does not enter discussion? What makes him the owner of Misplaced Pages? Fleet Command (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Fleetcommand. You re-insert the image, but the image still does not have a FUR. You may be working on it, but that is not what you indicate (your initial re-insertion comment is "I cannot spot any NFCC 10 violation. Removal by mistake", which clearly does not show that you are working on it). Also, you do not ask for clarification for the first removal (you just assumed it was a mistake, which is already bordering on not assuming good faith).

I find however 'Sometimes, it won't hurt if you assume good faith.' lacking good faith - there was something wrong, they remove the image as it does not have a fair-use rationale, neither removals are in bad faith: something was wrong, you did not understand what was wrong and thereby just re-inserted the violation, you did not bother to ask what was wrong, and when you get warned you go here?

Next time, when Delta, Hammersoft, I (or others who remove images because they fail WP:NFCC, please assume that something is wrong, and if you do not see what is wrong, or do not understand what is wrong, ask first. --Dirk Beetstra 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a good-faith check, then I reverted. I did not asked because I immediately discovered on my own on a second check and immediately fixed on my own. (You even provided evidence to that effect.) Are you telling me that simply because of my slightly flawed first check (inspite of a second complementary check and voluntary fixing of the issue), I do not merit receiving a friendly notice? Being exempt from not just AGF, DTTR and BRD but also Misplaced Pages:Civility? Fleet Command (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, why should only I ask first. Why shouldn't Delta? (WP:BRD says he should.) And why should only I assume good faith, not Delta. (Right now, it seem I did assume good faith and Delta didn't. -- I did a second check after all, didn't I?) And how comes that you reprimand me for my mild edit summary and not Delta for his DTTR-violating level three warning? Why do think I should have less rights than a normal Wikipedian or Delta? Fleet Command (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, FleetCommand, the message was sent in response to a re-insertion where you, in good faith, did not see the mistake. And that is already where the problem begins. People revert violations back in because they do not see or understand the problem. Sure, there is a possibility that the editor does see the problem later, but the 'I cannot spot any NFCC 10 violation. Removal by mistake' does not suggest that, it assumes the remover made a mistake. If such an image then gets reinserted, a thread should be opened on the user talkpage. That could be a custom message, or a warning template. Here, the warning template that is made for warning editors about NFCC use, is a sinlge-level warning: {{uw-nonfree}}; {{uw-nonfree1}}-{{uw-nonfree4}} do not exist. Moreover, since you were here already earlier pointed towards the WP:NFCC-policy, I think that it is actually a fair warning that repeated violations of policy can result in a block. --Dirk Beetstra 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No .. but that does not give you the right to violate policy, or to keep things in place which violate policy. --Dirk Beetstra 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you quote WP:DTR I can just as easily quote WP:TTR, which states the exact opposite. BRD does not apply to NFC issues, just like it doesnt apply to BLP issues or copyright violations. AGF is a strawman, I make no assumptions.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Well, well! I am overjoyed to hear all this. These statements are the worst vengeance that you could inflict upon yourself. (Dirk's second message helped too.) A brutal punishment too, if I may say so. If at any time you wanted to apologize and take them back... Ah, what am I saying! Please never apologize! Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see an incivility here. (Putting a standard template on a user's talk page isn't incivil.) Gerardw (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this user is insolent and aloof and further action should be taken! Puffin 15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Evidence? Diffs? Opinions don't count for much when you're talking about "further action". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You realise that that is a personal attack, Puffin? --Dirk Beetstra 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be persistent problems with this Delta fellow. Why? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He does have a curt manner dealing with others and is very resolved in what he's doing. Those aren't wrong by themselves but add in that he is working in the area of NFC - which numerous editors already struggle with accepting - and that there's a short fuse if discussion becomes heating. Perfect storm combination of elements to make Delta a constant target for admonition from others. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, back off! I have not personally attacked anyone because this person has been very rude and unethical to me. I believe that your contributions have been unethical, corrupt and unconstitutional as well as hurtful and untrue because I have been warned for an inappropriate reason for doing nothing because on the subatomic molecular levels of the particles of time and space, your ergo in incorrect. Puffin 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your baseless claims or redact them as personal attacks. ΔT 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@Puffin: Umm, unconstitutional? Care to explain? No constitution has bearing here on Misplaced Pages except Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The constitution is the policies and guidelines which this user has broken and destroyed. Puffin 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed, that this user gets a fair trial for his or her so called "personal attacks." or maybe even impolite replies. But me? No, I get a warning straight away. The user who sent me a warning has not given me the same treatment as another user treating them better than me which can be classified as a personal attack as well. Puffin 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you're going to make a claim that he violated any given policy or guideline, you're going to need to provide diffs to support that assertion. Just saying it has happened is insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it me or is Puffin's tongue located near their cheek? Gerardw (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: TV and visual media are most adept in creating inapplicable extreme examples that do not apply to Misplaced Pages. For instance, in a film, I saw a man in front of a court shouting for justice because the murderer of his wife and children was not found guilty; a police officer was holding a gun towards him and reminding him that "shouting is illegal". That extremely stupid example is completely inapplicable, especially in Misplaced Pages. In Misplaced Pages, we do not have court, law, guns, wives, kids and murder. We just have simple issues: Delta openly condemns and violates Misplaced Pages:Civility#Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment. Puffin only violates Misplaced Pages:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment. Delta is a hero. Puffin is reprimanded. Another person who did none of these is also offended and reprimanded. Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Puffin and FleetCommand. Let me be clear, there is never a reason to be incivil, not to assume good faith, or to issue personal attacks. You may very well be right that you think that an editor is violating that. What you then do, is either tell that person, or you warn that person, or you bring it to another board. What you do not do is issue a personal attack in return, or be incivil in return, or not to assume bad faith in return.

Now, let me also be clear about something else. Someone thinks that something is violating policy. That may have been inserted, boldly, in good faith originally, it may even have had a consensus that it was to be that way, whatever the reason. Someone else 'reverts' that situation, also that is in good faith, as he finds that it violates policy (the editor inserting it may boldly not have been aware of policy, Delta may be wrong, consensus may have changed, whatever. That removal gets reverted. And it gets re-reverted. Clearly, there is no consensus there. Now, editors disagree, fine - bring it to a decent discussion in whichever state it is, if it is there, Misplaced Pages will not die, if it is out for a couple of days, Misplaced Pages will not die. Sure, the remover should not go into an edit war, but neither the editors who want to insert it. All of you should be wiser than that. But what happens, the removers get shouted at, even when they show input towards a solution, that gets simply ignored, because the state that it is in is fine, there is simply no discussion possible showing that there actually is no violation or if there actually is a violation.

What Puffin should have done is, if they found that Delta was rude towards them, is remark on that, warn on that, or bring it to the attention of others (and notify Delta that they did). What I saw here, was a (albeit mildly) uncivil remark towards Delta. You may very well be right that Delta did the same, but yes, I warned Puffin to take care. Issuing that type of remarks never helps the situation.

And FleetCommand - this is plainly rude, uncivil and chilling. Moreover, reverting my first removal as 'edit warring' is plainly untrue, and calling my first edit to a page a case of WP:OWN ... I, also in good faith, thought (and still think), that that page overuses non-free material. Removing that violation is not vandalism. You have not tried to discuss the issue, you just claim consensus, you just warn (>24 hours after my edit). And similar for Island Monkey - this is rude, uncivil and chilling the situation (not to mention that I am not even close to 3RR after a first removal in more than 28 hours ..). And after you warn me for my first revert, you go on and revert 4 times. You have all been uncivil here. --Dirk Beetstra 08:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:141.165.199.134

8 July 2011

• 19:5319:53, 8 July 2011 diff hist +144 Paramus High School No edit summary
• 19:5019:50, 8 July 2011 diff hist +6 User talk:NJZombie No edit summary
• 02:2502:25, 8 July 2011 diff hist +279 Triple H No edit summary Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism

28 June 2011

• 03:0103:01, 28 June 2011 diff hist +183 Triple H No edit summary

• Triple H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paramus High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On June 27, this anonymous user vandalized the Triple H article with this change. I reverted his vandalism and left him a warning. 10 days later, he responded by vandalizing the article again, with a personal attack against me. I reverted his vandalism once again and left another warning on his talk page. I refrained from attacking or even commenting on his attacks. Today, the user returned and not only vandalized my own talk page but also vandalized the Paramus High School article, which I had recently edited, with more personal attacks directed at me. Another editor has placed a 24 hour block on the user after the vandalism on the Paramus High School article but I'm of the opinion that the incivility need to be addressed. NJZombie (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just a budding young troll. Hopefully nipped in the bud. What about the incivility do you want addressed? Doc talk 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for a ban necessarily. It just seems odd that if the user bothered to create an actual account, instead of using an anonymous IP, there would be no hesitation in doing so for personal attacks. I agree that it's some kid trolling and while I can take it for what it is and not get into a war with the user, no legit users looking to make actual contributions should have to just deal with it. Incivility is incivility. I don't know that there really needs to be specifics. The posts pretty much speak for themselves. NJZombie (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Trolls both old and young switch IP addresses and named accounts. Keep an eye on them and they'll be dealt with eventually. From what you've presented, this is not an editor that plays well with others. Maybe they'll learn and maybe they won't. Keep watching for the disruption and report it. Doc talk 07:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it's coming from summer camp at GSU. It will probably go away when the session ends. You have my sympathies. Jojalozzo 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru

• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Jojalozzo (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QuackGuru has left several posts ( ) on my talk page related to an extended dispute on Talk:Pseudoscience involving a large number of editors. I pointed out that the issue was not personal but involved the whole editing community for that article and I clearly requested that QG stop posting on my talk page. I am quite responsive in the article talk page and I see no need for QG's personalization of the disagreements by posting the same arguments on my talk page. Today another long posting appeared. I find QG's talk-page style to be dogged, repetitive, not-hearing, and tenditious. It's difficult enough in article space. I have been hiding QG's posts to my talk page but I'd rather not get them at all. Are there remedies that will keep QG's posts off my talk page? Jojalozzo 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, do you agree you will stop violating core Misplaced Pages policies? What is the abbrevation dnft stand for? Why did write in part: If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast.? QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that QuackGuru does not actually communicate but only leaves variants of the same announcement on your talk page (basically saying that he is right and you are wrong and your responses worthless), I think you can simply follow the same approach that I did here. Presumably (I haven't checked), after that he went around telling people behind my back that I was wrong and he was right and I wasn't responding at all, but at least he left my talk page alone. Hans Adler 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim is supported by the source. I recently explained this in detail on the talk page. Do you agree you won't replace sourced text with OR again or delete sourced text from a mainstream peer-reviewed source. See WP:WEIGHT. Your previous approach was not productive. You failed to explain why you are against including the mainstream source. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither this nor my talk page are the proper place to conduct a specific discussion about editing Pseudoscience. Here we are discussing how to help you recognize boundaries and to limit discussion to locations where the editors involved can participate. Jojalozzo 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum verbosium, begging the question and straw man. Also: When did you decide that trying to cause nervous breakdowns in serious Misplaced Pages editors is more fun than beating your wife?

You should have been banned per WP:COMPETENCE years ago. I am pretty sure if you hadn't simply stayed out of the recent Arbcom case which you caused and in which you were named, without any excuse or explanation whatsoever, you would be banned by now. Hans Adler 15:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to said ArbCom case please? DigitalC (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. QuackGuru's current baseless complaints are the continuation of events in February/March that only he is still interested in. At the time, Ludwigs2 took him to ANI because of the disruption, but Sandstein decided to shoot the messenger, leading to the Arbcom case. QuackGuru was named as one of four officially involved editors, but played dead. The evidence page was blanked. For an overview of QuackGuru's disruptive activities over the years (not exclusively WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE issues but also more active disruption), see here. Hans Adler 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. DigitalC (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hans Adler. Take QG to ArbCom again please. Why they didn't deal with him when they had the chance I don't know, but they need to do so- unless he can be community banned. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done, see WP:AE DigitalC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So far the responses here have been from those with their own problems with QuackGuru. I would appreciate hearing from uninvolved third parties with expertice in wikiquette. Thanks. Jojalozzo 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am. (at least I'm uninvolved) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am having a disagreement with this editor over dramatic, large scale removal and replacement of cited and referenced content in the Socialist Party of America article. However, I feel that I cannot even begin to reach a reasonable accommodation or even discussion with this editor because the incivility of this editor has been so extreme. My first encounter with this editor was an alert accusing me of disruptive editing for changes to the Socialist Party of America I made 5 years ago and warning of a block for my "disruptive editing". After placing an "NPOV" tag on the replacement section of the article, this users language has become more heated, and he is now calling my earlier edits "plagiarism". This editors strong language around this topic and wholesale dismissal of entire sources can also be seen here: .

I would like to settle this content dispute amicably, but do not feel this is possible given the behavior of this editor at this time. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Kiefer has some proof of plagiarism here. In addition he has been very civil, so I don't even understand where your statement of incivility comes from. I checked the edit summaries and there are no problems there. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be careful with that tool, Ryan. It is the nature of brief histories that substantial overlap must occur. The talk page of the article contains the selected and tell-tail matchings that I found, which were in the cited but improperly paraphrased "history".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING! First, the "plagiarized" lines shown ARE NOT EVEN MY EDITS. Second, your match detection software is showing things like use of the same personal names as "plagiarism". By that standard, *any* summary of a prior source is "plagiarism". Peter G Werner (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually found the link on Kiefer's talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, but it is at least plausible that my edits crossed a line of incivility.

EC

Werner did violate WP:copyright policy by plagiarizing the following pamphlet, which is not a reliable source to begin with.

The tool http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ matches the following strings, the important ones being already listed on the talk page of the article by me:

Automated comparison

Then he added multiple references to DraperDrucker's book, without page references, to support claims based entirely on the SPUSA history, as noted on the page. (He also added 2 1/2 items that I could find supported by Drucker, which I have listed with page numbers on the talk page of the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

There were BLP violations about the persons in the organization, who are still alive also.

Finally, Werner tagged the SPUSA article as violating WP:NPOV, without stating any specific problems. Even when prompted to list problems, he made attacks on my good faith and alleged political motivations.

I asked Fetchcomms earlier to check whether I was out of line, btw, since I've seen him fix copyright violations quickly. He'll be travelling for some weeks, however. I noted that there may be a difference between the indignation endorsed by Aristotelian and Christian ethics and the standards of WP: I invited Fetchcomms to block me if I was overzealous in describing the plagiarism.

On the other hand, you can see instances where I commend Werner for other good editing and note that this seems to have been an isolated case ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC), so that my criticisms were specifically about 4 behaviors and not personal attacks, clearly, imho 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).

Regardless, we'll have to take this up more in a few days.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please show me where it's a WP Manual of Style requirement to show page numbers. And that removal of entire content is warranted for lack of page references. The level of changes you demand based on mere nitpicks is incredible. You have basically removed all mention of the disagreements between different factions over the Vietnam War. That's a key piece of history you've thrown out. And all because you're miffed about Hal Draper's take on SPA history, a partisan argument I'm not even privy to, but something you've attacked my motivations for using as a source nevertheless. In any event, WP:NPOV would commend that neither the SPUSA or Draper version of events is favored over the other, but both reported in a neutral manner. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Read "Drucker" rather than "Draper", last night's mistake by both of us.

The SPUSA document is not a reliable source, per WP:RS, WP:Primary, etc: It is also wrong on the facts. Just read Harrington's memoirs and biography (and Harrington was leader of the minority), or the New York Times, or Drucker (who is a Trotskyssant socialist, so has no axe to grind, certainly not one favoring the most centrist organization, SDUSA). The "Debs caucus" was very small (2/33 NEC votes in '72), apparently, and so it is ignored in most accounts, even by those mentioning McReynolds. (Only Busky's book seems to discuss it, and Busky discloses that he was a SPUSA officer since 1978; maybe SPUSA national officer Eric Chester's book discusses it.)

For comparison: User:TheFourDeuces just removed my addition of material from Solidarity (U.S.) from American left, because it lacked secondary reliable references—while I devoted a good hour on Google Scholar and Google Books looking for references—and finding only references that cannot in good conscience be used, because ALL of the authors are members or very close associates of Solidarity. I fear that the Debs Caucus and SPUSA are in the same boat.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Update: I added a very short description of Solidarity, based on a publicly available footnote in Nelson L.'s book on the CIO in WWII (2nd ed.) I wouldn't use an account by him, or Buhle, etc., for more, because they seem to be associated with Against the Current more than WP:Secondary likes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can use secondary sources published by the academic press regardless of the views of the writers because the nature of the publishing process requires accuracy. We use them as sources of facts not opinions. As you found however, few sources are available on-line. However, the article American Left was well-sourced, using academic publications with news sources only used for current events, so adding unsourced material clearly was noticeable. TFD (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I had hoped that my having (by 10 a.m.) referenced Lichtenstein for a brief Solidarity description clearly had been noticeable too! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a policy requirement to show page numbers where material may be challenged, not just a guideline. WP:VERIFY says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there's some difficulty in establishing the accuracy of the accusations that form a significant part of this WQ alert, I've asked for feedback here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed material that was based on a SPUSA pamphlet, most of which was nonsense, certainly violated numerous WP policies.

Nonetheless, I preserved the beating heart cadaver with life support: I provided the page numbers to exactly 3 assertions, exactly those that could be said to be based on Drucker's book; I suggested "IMHO" that one could be added (judgement call), one was okay but uninformative (and therefore could be replaced with an expanded description of the conflict rather than an uninformative statement of conflict), and that one was more relevant to biographies of Shachtman/Harrington rather to an article on the SPUSA. Werner has not commented on these suggestions.

Werner still hasn't dealt with the issues raised on the article page, but has renewed personal attacks and AGF violations. I wrote a self-criticism and a defense of Werner on my talk page, suggesting that Ryan relax and consider things from Werner's side: Werner would do better to cut and paste that material, free under the WP license, in his complaint, imho!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I redacted my comments on the article's talk page (which had not been replied to there) to improve compliance with WP:AGF and WP:Civility.

On second thought, I think that Werner naively thought that SPUSA, with its tolerant and idealistic history, could be trusted to produce a pamphlet that (at least) got the facts right, and (in a moment of extremely poor judgment) overlooked the alarming turns of phrase (especially "Stalinist democratic centralism" or calling Harrington Shachtman's lieutenant). I also believe that Werner cited Drucker intentionally (apart from 2 1/2 cases) as a reliable reference for further reading (rather than intentionally as pseudoscholarship duplicitously adding weight to the SPUSA falsehoods), although this was a serious error because those WP:BLP-violating sections were obviously contentious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Out of courtesy, one should avoid templating established editors, merely explain to them what policy we believe they have violated. In any case, one should not template someone for an edit made five years ago. One should also assume good faith that another editor may be adding information he believes to be accurate even if it may be worded in a non-neutral way. Just explain what your position is and await the response. A lot of articles about the Left in the U.S. were written years ago and are poorly sourced or may not otherwise measure up to standards that would be acceptable today. We should work cooperatively to improve that. Also, there are procedures for resolving content disputes, but one should try to resolve them with other editors of the article first. TFD (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. In retrospect, I was probably reacting to the "democratic centralism" slander as well as a concern that nobody had caught the undue weight/NPOV/Reliable/BLP/Secondary problems with these articles in 5 years, despite them being edited by officers and activists in the SPUSA and similarly sophisticated and intelligent editors outside the SPUSA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:65.93.15.213

20 July 2011

• 05:3405:34, 20 July 2011 diff hist +2 Template talk:Cleanup weighted/sandbox No edit summary
• 05:3305:33, 20 July 2011 diff hist +224 Template talk:Cleanup weighted/testcases No edit summary
• 05:3305:33, 20 July 2011 diff hist +29 Template talk:Cleanup weighted/sandbox No edit summary
• 05:3205:32, 20 July 2011 diff hist +41 N Template talk:Cleanup weighted/testcases ←Created page with '{{nobots}} {{template test cases notice}}'
• 05:3105:31, 20 July 2011 diff hist +514 N Template talk:Cleanup weighted/sandbox ←Created page with '{{nobots}} {{Template sandbox notice}} {{Ambox | subst = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly> | type = content | small = {{{...'
• 05:3005:30, 20 July 2011 diff hist +23 Template:Cleanup weighted +small param
• 05:2605:26, 20 July 2011 diff hist +193 Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 17 →Template:Cleanup-weighted-section
• 05:2105:21, 20 July 2011 diff hist +235 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Misplaced Pages:FOO
• 04:5004:50, 20 July 2011 diff hist +4 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology →Bannering
• 04:5004:50, 20 July 2011 diff hist +285 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology →Bannering: new section
• 04:4404:44, 20 July 2011 diff hist −29 Talk:Ron Larson (disambiguation) was disambiguated
• 04:4004:40, 20 July 2011 diff hist +302 Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics →Algar, Uttara Kannada: new section
• 04:3804:38, 20 July 2011 diff hist +178 Talk:Algar, Andalusia No edit summary
• 04:3304:33, 20 July 2011 diff hist +9 N Talk:Urinal (health care) per discussion at WPMED
• 04:3204:32, 20 July 2011 diff hist +302 User talk:65.93.15.213 →Project overtagging?
• 04:2504:25, 20 July 2011 diff hist +150 Talk:Defecation postures →Move proposal
• 04:2404:24, 20 July 2011 diff hist +136 Talk:Stammer (disambiguation) No edit summary
• 04:2304:23, 20 July 2011 diff hist +360 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations No edit summary
• 04:2204:22, 20 July 2011 diff hist +360 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States No edit summary
• 04:2104:21, 20 July 2011 diff hist +229 Talk:United States Foreign Service Career Ambassador →Bannering: new section
• 04:1704:17, 20 July 2011 diff hist +74 Stenodus leucichthys No edit summary
• 04:1604:16, 20 July 2011 diff hist +170 Talk:Stenodus leucichthys →Move request
• 04:1304:13, 20 July 2011 diff hist +201 User talk:EEK Research/Duoyuan Global Water No edit summary
• 04:1204:12, 20 July 2011 diff hist +5 Duoyuan Global Water copyedit
• 04:0404:04, 20 July 2011 diff hist +284 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia →Eastern religion: new section
• 04:0204:02, 20 July 2011 diff hist +224 Talk:Eastern religions →Bannering: new section
• 04:0204:02, 20 July 2011 diff hist +128 Talk:Eastern religions →Requested move
• 04:0004:00, 20 July 2011 diff hist +249 Talk:B. B. King No edit summary

19 July 2011

• 07:2007:20, 19 July 2011 diff hist +332 Talk:Galaxy morphological classification →Lenticular classification arm: new section
• 07:1407:14, 19 July 2011 diff hist +221 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Eclipses task force →eclipses: new section
• 07:0107:01, 19 July 2011 diff hist +72 Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 17 →File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg
• 07:0007:00, 19 July 2011 diff hist +70 Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 17 →File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg
• 06:5906:59, 19 July 2011 diff hist +211 Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 17 →File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg
• 06:5306:53, 19 July 2011 diff hist +165 Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 16 →File:Autorouteexitsign.jpg
• 06:5206:52, 19 July 2011 diff hist +164 Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 16 →File:Autorouteentrancesign.jpg
• 06:4806:48, 19 July 2011 diff hist +259 Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 18 →Template:Filmation
• 06:4406:44, 19 July 2011 diff hist +172 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 15 →The Twelve Days of Christmas
• 06:4106:41, 19 July 2011 diff hist +183 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 18 →Laughlin High School
• 06:3606:36, 19 July 2011 diff hist +54 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Category:Quebecois sculptors
• 06:3606:36, 19 July 2011 diff hist +160 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Category:Quebecois sculptors
• 06:3506:35, 19 July 2011 diff hist +60 Dragon School No edit summary
• 06:3506:35, 19 July 2011 diff hist +285 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Old Dragons
• 06:3306:33, 19 July 2011 diff hist +176 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Old Decanians
• 06:3106:31, 19 July 2011 diff hist +193 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Icenians
• 06:3006:30, 19 July 2011 diff hist +161 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Old Bristolians
• 06:3006:30, 19 July 2011 diff hist +188 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Old Alleynians
• 06:2906:29, 19 July 2011 diff hist +191 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Old Cholmeleians
• 06:2706:27, 19 July 2011 diff hist +196 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Old Lancastrians
• 06:2606:26, 19 July 2011 diff hist +232 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Category:Old Elizabethans
• 06:2406:24, 19 July 2011 diff hist +235 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 →Category:Downe House Seniors

• Stars_in_astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have never seen anything like this before, so I don't know where to report it. This anonymous editor is adding various (and sometimes irrelevant) WikiProject templates to the Talk pages on a wide variety of articles (and not rarely AfD). He never leaves an edit summary about it, so it kind of easily goes unnoticed. The Stars_in_astrology article suddenly has been added to the WikiProjects Astronomy, History of Science, and even Agriculture. Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stars_in_astrology&diff=prev&oldid=438861338 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stars_in_astrology&diff=prev&oldid=438861579 Looking at this editor's history I see he has recently started doing this on the Talk pages of all kind of articles. I wonder, how can this editor be working on so many different Projects? And are the other members on those Projects aware that completely unrelated topics are silently being put under the scope of their Project? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like simple vandalism. Surprisingly, there are no warnings on the user's talk page. Looking into this further I can see logic behind the contributions (e.g. stars in astrology have been and still are used by some to time agricultural activities). Perhaps you could post a message on their talk page asking for clarification.Jojalozzo 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify. I was not sure myself. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes the additions appear very far fetched to me. But I see the templates have been removed already, so maybe it is considered vandalism. I also raised the question on the WikiProjects Council because this is something I have never seen before, and they may want to look into it. Why are articles of minor importance suddenly being added to 3-4 different WikiProjects? It's puzzling. I searched the guidelines for maybe 1 hour and found nothing about this kind of practice. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#Overtagging is disruptive. That guide calls it "spamming" when minor articles are added to projects. When the motivation is a good faith desire to get attention for an article that needs work it's not comparable to adding links to an external web site. However if the article is for a commercial enterprise (which is not the case here) then the spamming label fits. Jojalozzo 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not overtagging, since the study of the cycles of the stars in ancient times is the basis on which astronomy grew from. And the cycles were studied to determine the correct time to plant. So, it would fall under history of science, astronomy and farming.65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but consider that it is a very minor article with very few other articles linking in to it. I am sure the stars were also used for navigation in ancient times (and still), so should we then also add it to the Projects that deals with navigation? The Project Ships and Project Transport among others? Birds also navigate by the stars, so let's add Project Birds..

Where will it stop?

The imperfect rule of thumb is to go to the main article(s) related to the WikiProject and check what LinksHere. If an article is not linking to it then it is probably not under the scope of the Project. Of course that can change if an article gets more developped. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This specific article covers the relationship between the stars and the equinox and solstices, which I would think, is where astronomy and astrology meet. And it deals with it in a historical context. I do see the point you're getting at. And that's why I only added these particular tags, instead of all possible WPPs. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We're also discussing this on 65.93.15.213's talk page and the article talk page. I suggest we close out this and the one on 65.93.15.213's talk page and continue, if necessary, on the article talk page. Jojalozzo 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. No need to discuss this in 3 different places. 65.93.15.213 is responding to questions, and we still have to give the benefit of doubt that the edits were done in good faith, because the motivation he gives is not completely unreasonable. Continue on his Talk. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

• Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has depleted my patience with this edit, where he calls me "anti-Palestinian". Likewise some time ago in this edit he said I have a "Zionist POV". In addition he is childishly mimicking my edits in discussion, like in this edit. In general his tone in discussion is derogatory. We disagree, and disagree strongly, on certain points, but he has no right to accuse me of having certain sentiments. I'd like an uninvolved admin to admonish him for his violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please note the many blocks and topic-ban on his talkpage, indicative that this editor is problematic. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

I am being accused of "sickening bias and double standards" by Whatzinaname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on an increasing basis, notably here at Talk:Jenson Button#ridiculous POV pushing. This editor's problem is not that I added biased statements, but that I did not remove supposedly biased statements written by others. Elsewhere, there is this kind of thing , accusations of bad faith and bias against foreigners and similar accusations a while ago at his IP talk page (he does not always log in) here: User talk:66.190.31.229#Vettel. On more than one occasion he has used his IP to help his named account in an edit war , . Do I have to defend myself against this kind of abuse, or can somebody do something about it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't "edit war" with my IP. I forget to log in sometimes. And sometimes I just don't want to bother to log in. Secondly, YOU are the one biased against foreigners with your easily demonstrable bias against non-british drivers, not me. You are merely upset I completely destroyed your claims of being ubiased in the jenson button wiki talk page, and are trying to save face with these absurd claims.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of bad faith and bias are thus reproduced here, first hand by this editor. He has yet to produce a single piece of biased information that I have added to any article. If it's so easily demonstrable, then he should produce something here which I have added, that is biased - NOT somebody else's work which I have left in place. This accusation of bias against foreigners is deeply offensive. I edit articles on Formula One drivers of all nationalities and utterly refute all accusations of racial or xenophobic bias, and I request that this be retracted as completely unfounded. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit history shows a distinct double standard for british formula one drivers and non-british ones. It's a simple fact I've detailed several times now. Whether ir's "xenophobic" or not is non of my concern. I intend to crush it whenever I see it. Misplaced Pages should be an unbiased source of information, period. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If it shows such a thing, prove it. You haven't, and can't, because it does not exist. This is unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

you edit war for the inclusion of NPOV edits here for Jenson Button http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jenson_Button&diff=prev&oldid=438725819 , then you have no problem with similar edits when it involves sebastian vettel http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_Monaco_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=431640701 . This isn't an isolate incident either, but a pattern of behavior. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution