Revision as of 14:44, 11 February 2012

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active discussions

Jayjg Personal Attacks

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

Jayg has been using personal attacks on my religions beliefs to discredit my opinions on talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 yisraeldov (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a personal attack. Note that Yisraeldov resumed editing four days ago after a two year break and has not informed Jayjg of this request. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't remember seeing where it said that if you don't make edits every day then you are vulnerable to personal attacks ? If you read the article on personal attacks it state

"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Jayjg has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me in Talk:Circumcision. Some examples include, 'Regarding whether there should be a tag, the views of Wimp O'Pede, a banned sockpuppet, are not relevant. Also, when it comes to broad policy and the proper use of tags, the views of Therewillbefact, tftobin, Robert B19 and Chevara, four editors who essentially joined Misplaced Pages this month, edit exclusively from an anti-circumcision POV, edit essentially one article (this one), and have a combined total of 9 article edits among them, carry little weight. In addition, Carlossuarez46 hasn't stated the article should be tagged. Finally, there's no "pro-circumcision argument for "cost-effectiveness" in the lead". "Perma-tagging" an article because one cannot insert policy-violating POV is an old tactic, and this article has been a particular target for it, but it's WP:DISRUPTive, so you'll have to come up with an actual and specific policy issue, because this won't be tolerated for much longer. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)'

'If I were to speculate, I would guess that people who hang out at "intactivist" fora, and who come here as a result of encouragement to do so in those fora, would be far more likely to be "true believers" promoting a POV than regular Misplaced Pages editors who are here because they support Misplaced Pages, and who have edited thousands of different articles besides this one. And given the persistent sockpuppeting on this article, the "unless" you mention is a significant concern here. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)'

'Perhaps they do exist, I wouldn't know. However, they don't really seem relevant to what happens in this article. Whenever new editors show up at this article, they inevitably edit from an strongly anti-circumcision viewpoint, so the scenario you suggest contradicts the reality of this article. And when I "take a hard look around me" and "check a little", I find literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists, maligning one specific editor here - saying (as one random example) conspiratorial things like "He trolls the internet late at night, looking for vulnerable parents to influence, to surgically alter their kids, while pretending to be neutral. This is a technique he picked up from feigning a neutral point of view with Misplaced Pages, all the while slanting it to a pro-circumcision position, but not enough so that those protest against his manipulations have arbitrators come down on their side. He collaborates with other circumcisers worldwide." These are the kinds of comments that indicate a profound misunderstanding of both this article and how Misplaced Pages works, and seem more like personal vendetta than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Another exammple is, 'I'm sorry you feel that way - although I must say, what happens on this talk page is not one-hundredth as hostile and vitriolic as the stuff I've seen over the past few days looking through various anti-circumcision fora and postings (random example provided in my posting above of 16:31, 3 February 2012). Jakew is extraordinarily patient. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)' I also find this reply rather snide, in its original context. 'Misplaced Pages welcomes all people who are willing to edit in accord with its policies. Having to edit in accord with Misplaced Pages's policies makes some people feel very unwelcome. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Additionally, I am not the only person who is experiencing difficulties with Jayjg.

'Jayjg, you mentioned the "literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists" In your opinion, do they offer any evidence that is currently not in the article?Chevara (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)' 'I can't vouch for everything they say, but based on a small random sample they mostly seem to contain a) personal opinion, often of a quasi-religious "good vs. evil" nature; b) personal attacks; and c) highly selective (and often misinterpreted) use of primary or non-scientific sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)'

'I would appreciate it if you both refrained from putting words in my mouth going forward. Jayjg said HIV-related content once consisted of 25% of the lead, and also mentioned that this percentage has drastically reduced since. Allow me to quote it: "Beejaypii spent literally weeks arguing that the lede devoted too much attention to HIV, because 25% of it (since significantly reduced) was on that topic (...)" Did Jayjg not just say here that 25% of the lead was previously devoted to HIV, and has "significantly reduced" since? Now what I was saying is that HIV coverage still consists of roughly 25% of the lead. The previous coverage of HIV content in the lead was actually closer to 30%, for what it's worth, and is now about a quarter. Jakew, the next time you ask someone who informs someone to get their facts straight, I politely ask that you've also done the same. '

This sets up a totally hostile atmosphere to anyone who comes onto the Talk:Circumcision page, in a way I don't see with the other editors. Thank you for your attention. Tftobin (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How should I go about informing him? I requested that he refrain from using personal attacks and referenced him to this link. --yisraeldov (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From the diff

Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best.

better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism.

There are other such comments on the same page that are belittling my opinion because I am a Haradi that lives in Israel. Why is that not "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" ?14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

There is nothing belittling in his comments. He simply was trying to explain that your view may not be shared by others outside of your own scope of experience. OhNoitsJamie 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism."

That is extremely belittling, he is assuming because of my affiliation, that my knowledge is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this thread before it goes into an infinite do loop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Entropy and Miszabot terminate all WQA loops. Nobody Ent 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I find this wikipedia snobbery very troubling. First that some one continually used my religious affiliation to belittle my opinion, and second that everyone here seems to agree with him, and no one is willing to address my comments seriously. yisraeldov (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not saying we agree or disagree, just that you haven't provided evidence of personal attacks requiring sanctions. As of the time I'm writing this, I'd say that Misplaced Pages is barely civil but not overly polite. (The Arbitration Committee has accepted a case regarding the issue, so it's possible there may be some changes.) Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. Nobody Ent 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand. He said that because of my religion I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic ? Why is that not a personal attack yisraeldov (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because decisions made on Misplaced Pages are determined by consensus. Multiple editors have volunteered their time to reply to your request and we've explained the policy to the best of our ability. Nobody Ent 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to provide a link to the Arbitration Committee case which I assume is about general civility and not this dispute, as an FYI. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying link. @Nobody Ent wrote: Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. The problem I see is that there are a few Admins who really push the envelope on incivility, but if one were to be half as uncivil back, one would get "in trouble." (Not in this case but in other past ones involving this and other admins.) Admins really do have to live up to a higher standard of civility, and be careful of the threats (no matter how subtle) they wield when in contention with other editors on an article, or it makes other editors feel like second class citizens. This evidently has been an issue with User:Malleus Fatuorum, who is subject of the civility enforcement, in the past; though not clear from his user page if he's still an admin. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He is not an admin ().--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not hard to understand the complaint. Yisraeldov is complaining that Jayjg is construing as minimal Yisraeldov's "knowledge of Jewish history", and this is certainly a legitimate complaint. In fact Jayjg does not know the extent of Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history consequently Jayjg should not be commenting on Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history.

WP:TALK applies here: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I am referring to "Google is not a great metric, but it's a starting point, and certainly better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century 'Haredi' Judaism." Jayjg should not be commenting on another editor's "knowledge of Jewish history." Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking if someone is qualified to edit an article (or implying they are not) is an example of WP:OWNER behavior and should not be done.

I ended up here exploring options for dispute on circumcision pov tag. Jayjg has accused people of being disrupted 3 times for support of a NPOV tag, and claims he does not see any relevant POV disputes. Though, Jayjg has made contributed to 3 topics active in the past 5 days , and , where WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are under discussion. there are more of these in the archive (the talk page archives at 5 days old)). I can't possibly see how Jayjg could have read and contributed to these topics and not seen that authors have POV disputes, when he himself is arguing to correct a POV or that someone else is adding POV. I find his disregard very uncivil if not a breach of policy. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg is famous for doing as many as 60-70 edits a day, though looking at hist last 500 contributions, he seems to have slowed down. It's hard to properly work toward consensus on articles when one does that much editing. It's easy to get into incivility and edit wars when one doesn't listen properly to others. I've done it from time to time when doing only 15 or 20 edits in a day. Jayjg needs to slow down. This is supposed to be a fun diversion, not a job where one is under pressure to produce, civility and consensus be damned :-) CarolMooreDC 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the given diff (in original report and repeated above): Mathsci, Guerillero, OhNoitsJamie, and Nobody Ent have indicated above that the diff does not show a personal attack. I confirm that it is not a personal attack—in fact it is not a wikiquette issue at all. It is much better to speak plainly at Misplaced Pages because hiding a problem with circumlocutions or euphemisms does not help the encyclopedia or any of its editors. Please respond to the issues raised, not some imagined insult. Jayjg took some trouble to explain their point, and did not violate any guideline or policy. There is no evidence of a problem due to frequency of edits. The long post above regarding issues at Talk:Circumcision does not show any wikiquette issue either (suggestion: it would be better to show a single good example of what you think is a problem, and briefly explain why it is a problem). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User refusing to retract accusations of vandalism.

• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Topgun has in this section called me a vandal for removing unsourced content and a probable BLP violation from the article. I have asked him to retract his comment and he has refused twice. The probable BLP vio is This. I can find no other record of this anywhere. As I said on the talk page, It was sourced to a TV show. Something called geo.tv. I looked on Gnews and Gbooks for verification that this was said, now given it was supposedly said only last year I find it a little suspicious that no other news agency picked up on such a controversial statement. Based on the massive misrepresentation of sources already found in this article I have little option but to believe it is a fake citation. I would like him to remove his accusation of vandalism as I am most certainly not a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• He is also accusing me of removing sourced content, which is obviously untrue. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, DS didn't look too hard. The deleted Musharraf quote can also be found via google news archives, at . This of course does not justify the accusation, but there's blame enough to go round here. AGF, folks. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point, he asks me for good faith without extending the same to the user who added the source with complete information going against WP:SOURCEACCESS. And I didn't call him a vandal, but his reckless blanking of sourced content can surely be categorized in that and that is what I said. He has been making unambiguous personal attacks on me since last two months, stalking and hounding me. Just a glimpse of his most recent response to my clarification for his WP:SOUP attempt to an admin with cherry picked diffs (even those including sourced content). He has been using false pretext of BLP as a justification for editwar (noted by the same admin). I have more than enough diffs to open an RFC/U on him, but I was advised to let him have the WP:ROPE. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never asked you to show good faith, it would be pointless as you have repeatedly said you would not. The diffs were not cherry picked, they were in response to your lie that I was removing sourced content from the article, the same diffs are right up above for anyone to check. Magog most certainly has never said I was edit warring under false pretexts, another lie. I have not been hounding you, I had been checking your edits due to your habit of edit warring unsourced content into articles. And for the hideous bias you exhibit in your editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

His comment on you is clear. And assuming good faith is not mandatory, I would have done it though if you did the same.. and I have given you benefit of doubt everytime inspite of that. Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore... the comment above is clear about who makes the personal attacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Edit wars unsourced POV WP:OR onto an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive language

• BillKlinton2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abusive language in edit summary. "User is a nigger" Jim1138 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely, edit summary redacted. In the future, abuse this blatant can go right to the admin's noticeboard. Danger 21:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WILKEPEDIA PAGE being Abused by Administrator. Keeps deleting! PLEASE HELP!

• Eagles247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stanford Routt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To Whom It may Concern:

Wilki administrator Eagles247 has modified AND DELETED Routt, Stanford statistics from his wilkepedia page. His stats have been online for the past few years and deleting it in attempt to minimize Routt's career is wwrong. I need the help of A Wilkepedia administrator that is NON SUBJECTIVE to either go through Routt's OLD page which went untouched for months. I would like to leave everything that was on the page other than the latest breaking news from February 2012. Any assistance would be helpful.

This is very unusual and also decietful to people who come on wilkepedia to get the facts about an individual. Deleting Posts that have existed for years is in very POOR taste.

Feel free to view the edit history from Eagles247. I would appreciate if someone can help me. Thanks in advance.

Eagles comment on the edit history -- copyvio -- is Misplaced Pages shorthand for copyright violation. They're saying that it appears the content was cut and pasted -- maybe from here? -- which is illegal and not consistent with the intellectual license Misplaced Pages operates under. If you think that is not the case the place to discuss the issue is Talk:Stanford Routt Nobody Ent 23:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Wikiquitte dispute by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, your version of the article grossly violates WP:MOS and is completely unsourced. Take your objections and suggestions to the article's talk page, not here. OhNoitsJamie 23:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things. It's not abuse by an admin, it's just an ordinary editor who is removing the material. Second, it's not stats, it's copyrighted material from http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/carolina-panthers/77262-stanford-routt-released.html and possibly other locations that you're adding and that is being removed http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stanford_Routt&action=historysubmit&diff=476034116&oldid=476033889 Third, you might want to read WP:COPYVIO. Should the editor tell you that more directly? Sure. Should you be surprised that you can't break copyright laws and get away with it? Probably not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So why delete his college statistics and stats and records from the NFL. What exactly is the issue- please explain in detail. NOTHING WAS ADDED other than the release. The Administrator DELETED Routt's entire wilkepedia. All of which are verified by the Associated Press, NFL.com and ProFootBall Talk. I didn't ADD anything other than the fact that Routt GRADUATED with a BSc in Kinesilogy from University of Houston in 2011. Please explain why the editor is CLEARING everything. This is insanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The exact phrasing used elsewhere is copyrighted. If you want to use the data provided, it's certainly allowable to write your own words in the article. Just be should to include a reference to where you got the data from (see WP:CITE ) Nobody Ent 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is still the wrong place for this discussion. Take it to the article.

They're all copyright violations. I checked every paragraph that was removed and they're all lifted, letter-for-letter from another source. I may be wrong, it's just that there are a lot of Google hits on the material. Also, I don't know about American football articles, but in association football articles, we don't list the stats for players before entering international competition or professional leagues, so it's a bunch of trivia or possibly fan cruft. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just EDITED it AGAIN in MY own words that DONT violate copyrights and its been deleted. What gives? Where do I take this discussion??? I addeded in my edit link to verify data. I really need help with this- can a senior editor email me please. It's very frustrating to deal with someone basically CLEARING out stuff without reason. Copyright violation you stated and I removed it and added ORIGINAL words and sentences. Please help. And also how do I reach this particular administrator to see what exactly the ISSUE is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it here Talk:Stanford Routt. Nobody Ent 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of being notified of this discussion, I get slapped with a 3RR warning. That's a Wikiquette violation in itself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've finally read over this discussion. I stumbled upon this article after learning of Routt's release from the Raiders. Immediately I removed copyright violations of his Raiders bio (among other edits). Within minutes, an IP user (undoubtedly this user here) added back the full copyvio here. I reverted and left a warning on the IP's talk page. Seven minutes later, I was reverted again, this time by User:Nflfacts2k2. I assumed good faith and did not block immediately, and instead left another warning for the user. Apparently Nflfacts2k2 changed the text to his own words (or somewhat close) here, but I assumed it was the same text as before, as it appeared very similar, and I reverted again. Of course, I also did not receive notification of this thread, so I could not have known the user was thoughtfully edited after that. The user has since reverted my revert, and the text is still similar to that of his Raiders bio under "College". FWIW, the two above links (one to a forum and one to a fan site) include text copied from Misplaced Pages, not the other way around. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Three reverts is bad news. You shouldn't sweat repeated additions. Take it to WP:ANI instead, and in this case you have WP:CCI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I know policy and where the notice boards are, thanks. I'm not a new user by any stretch. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that removing clear copyright violations is a 3 revert rule exemption. If an editor is adding copyrighted text, anyone may revert them more than three times in a 24 hour period. The 3RR warning given to Eagles247 was not appropriate. Alpha_Quadrant 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, guys, we've missed something very important here... Nflfacts2k2 was modifying Wilkipedia, not Misplaced Pages, so obviously Misplaced Pages's rules about WP:CITE, WP:3RR, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF would don't apply. I don't know what Wilkipedia's standards are on those issues, but if it was on Misplaced Pages, someone needs those policies and guidelines beaten into them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Way to stay classy, Ian.thomson. Even though Nflfacts2k2 is in the wrong here – and more than a little over the top in his use of SCREAMING CAPS – it's not necessary or helpful to mock him for a typo. Particularly on a board that's supposed to be for resolving issues involving failures of basic courtesy between editors. I understand that it's socially acceptable on Misplaced Pages to abuse and deride new editors who don't quite understand how this project works after they've embarrassed themselves on a noticeboard, but do you think it's a good idea? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Misplaced Pages's rules, Muphry's law "would does" apply. Ian.thomson may be mocked in return. --Escape Orbit 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem "would don't apply".... ohrly? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that irony, or sarcasm? Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps its a huge misunderstanding. I apologize to those offended by my ALL CAPS Our team is working deligently to fix the copyright issues by professionally rewriting in OUR words and listing references to support what is written. This will be an all day process so I ask you eagles247 to relax with the reverts as changes are being made to include facts deleted. Someone else mentioned an article souding like it was written unprofessinally. I assure you it's not the case. Eagles247 made the change that contained a typo yesterday so I guess we aren't all devoid of error. I please ask administrators to wait 24-48hrs as we adjust everything to include what was deleted. I just want all the accuracies kept. I appreciate all the feedback and thanks for helping to solve this problem. My intent was not to harm anyone. I will ask questions should I run into any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've blocked Nflfacts2k2 indefinitely per her comment immediately above in which she purports her account is operated by a "team" of individuals in violation of WP:NOSHARE. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update: Nflfacts2k2 has stated that she "runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt" here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil editor

• Charlr6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paranormal Activity 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) {{|User talk:Charlr6}}

Editor has been rude on the Paranormal Activity 3 page and when I asked them not to be on their talk page he has been uncivil and we have been bantering back and fourth as a result. Odoital25 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One instance (a diff would have been helpful on your part) where he states that two editors are lazy. Not acceptable, but neither is the attack on his talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning left, although calling someone lazy isn't the worst offence I've seen in the past 24 hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the editors accused of being lazy by Charlr6, I'm far less concerned by his rather childish lashing out than I am by the fact he's been on Misplaced Pages for over 4 years and doesn't understand that the onus is on the contributor of information to prove that it is accurate via reliable sources. I haven't been inclined to respond on his talkpage as it's clear he thinks his actions beyond reproach. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start using Misplaced Pages properly until the past few months and I only added information in occasionally. And maybe you should take a look at my comment/question back to Walter on my talk page and see if what I am saying is childish and uncivilised. You don't have to comment back to it if you don't want to, but I do have a clear point. Charlr6 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walter, just informing you that I have asked you a question on my page. Would ask on here but don't know whether it would be allowed or not. Thank you. Charlr6 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Carlaude continues to move/delete my comments despite repeated requests not to

User:Carlaude continually disregards my requests to stop editing my comments. I request that someone else intervenes. User:Carlaude has twice moved my comments and once deleted a request to stop doing it. Each time Carlaude has done this I have asked him/her not to do so. Below is the history.

• 1. User:Carlaude split one of my comments into another discussion thread at Talk:Christian ethics. I requested here that not be done again, noting that it is normally against Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines.
• 2. After this request, Carlaude again split one of my comments into a new thread; my comment lost the original context.
• 3. At User talk:Carlaude, I reminded Carlaude for a second time that this was not normally allowed, and requested that editing of my comments stop.
• 4. User:Carlaude summarily reverted/deleted my warning and request without comment.

After three violations, two of which occurred after requests to stop, it is clear that User:Carlaude will not listen to these requests ... at least from me. I request an administrator intervene in whatever manner she/he sees fit. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm - some people will "refactor" comments, but should stop if asked to. Most things posted on a user's talk page can be removed by the user, so point 4 is not really an issue as I see it. Has the behavior stopped after the second request? Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought that the following at WP:Talk applied to deletion as well: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" (emphasis in original). That deletion on Carlaude's talk page took place after the second request. The second request was actually what was deleted from his/her talk page. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages ... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. If the behavior continues I will leave a note on his/her talk page. Hopefully the issue is reolved. Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, many thanks!! --Airborne84 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IP very upset with warnings

• 94.4.182.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RI:SE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From the comments made by the IP, it would appear that someone else is using his/her computer to edit articles adding "It was a stupid show, hosted by a bunch of trendies.". After the first revert and warning by me (via Huggle), I got this message user talk:Jim1138#Thanks_for_ruining_my_day.3D. I left a talkback on his page after my reply on mine. Another change was placed on RI:SE and I warned him a second time (for a total of four warnings by others and myself). He added a "Harassment" section to his page. I am not looking for a any judgement or banning. As he threatened to call the police, I am concerned if I should do something. Any comments? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. Don't respond and report it to WP:AIV if the account vandalises again. Danger 22:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Danjel and school AfDs/improvements

• Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has continually affirmed the notability of primary schools. That would be perfectly fine...except that he has repeatedly called users who disagree with him "incompetent", "flat-out wrong" and "trolls". This when Purplebackpack89 cites WP:COMMONOUTCOMES vis-a-vis schools; a perfectly acceptable reference that has been reaffirmed numerous times. True, common outcomes can be ignored, but it's a bit of a stretch (to say nothing of being quite incivil) for someone who's ignoring common outcomes to call someone who's abiding by them "flat-out wrong'. Danjel also suggested Purplebackpack89 follow BEFORE...on articles he didn't even AfD. Danjel would also bring up Purplebackpack89's stances on deletion in discussions where his stance was tangential (for example here and elsewhere; note that the so-called "non-existent" consensus is actually what is said at COMMONOUTCOMES); virtually always to mock or berate them. Another issue is his attitude at school articles that are being improved; this often with Users Fmph and Epeefleche. This involves content disputes over the use of maintenance tags for articles that need to be improved. The most recent example of this was Lyneham Primary School. Another user had first suggested this be brought to dispute resolution, but an admin informed me that WQA was the better place. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggested course of action I am looking for is for it to be mandated that Danjel be asked to step away from school-related articles, and maybe Misplaced Pages in general, for a time; and perhaps also that he be forced into mentorship Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this recommended action. Danjel is a helpful and courteous editor. He has been responding in sheer frustration at the school AfD campaign launched by Epeefleche and supported by Purplebackemperor, both of whom mistakenly seems to be of the opinion that all primary schools are non-notable which is not at all the case. Epeefleche nominated over 150 schools for AfD within the space of a few weeks. The sheer scale of the nominations has created endless problems for Wikiproject Schools. Regular editors have not had time to contribute properly to the debates and notable schools have been deleted in the process because editors haven't had the time to add the appropriate sources to articles. The discussions can be seen at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools. Dahliarose (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, going out of his way to slight me, as he has repeatedly done (there are edits where he starts talking about something else, then digresses into criticizing me or Epeefleche) doesn't suggest "helpful and courteous". Also, my name isn't "Purplebackemperor" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry for getting your name wrong. I shouldn't edit Misplaced Pages late at night! I've now corrected the spelling. I've looked at the Lyneham Primary School article and I think you've completely misinterpreted the situation. Epeefleche's edits to this article were not at all constructive. He added a ref improve tag to an article which already had 11 references, far more references than many other articles on Misplaced Pages. The other editors on the article quite rightly reverted his edits. It is not surprising that Danjel got somewhat annoyed, especially as Epeefleche's entire edit history currently consists of tagging articles and nominating articles for deletion, often with only minutes between each edit. It would be more helpful if there were other editors like Danjel who spend time adding content and sources to articles. Dahliarose (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, it seems to me that you've ignored the whole WQA process which is listed in the table near the top. You're not going to get what you want, which is having Danjel topic banned, since WQA "is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour". To me you wanting Danjel to be topic banned or wanting him to have a Wikibreak, seem more like removing someone to make the AfD noms more successful. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not much here for me to respond to. Purplebackpack89, you've quite failed to represent the situation neutrally. And you have gone further to suggest bans from school related discussions (i.e., the primary area in which I edit, according to my userpage), from wikipedia generally and asked that I be "forced" into mentorship in direct contravention of the text at the very top of this page which states: "Avoid initiating a request if: ... You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." That you have completely stepped out of the guidelines of WQA and the measures you call for are outrageously disproportionate for anything less than severe disruption to the project shows that you have, from the get go, acted in bad faith.

To respond to your complaint about my view of the way you interpret WP:OUTCOMES (that you also raised at DRN: ): (1) WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy; (2) WP:OUTCOMES details the outcomes that have occured in the past and therefore talks of consensus in the past, and Consensus Can Change; (3) Your stance, that you say above derives from WP:OUTCOMES that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" is a "flat out" incorrect understanding of the sentence: "most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" (quoted from WP:OUTCOMES#Schools; emph. added) where, you will note, that it does not say anything about the notability of primary schools; (4) Most of this has been said before when I tried to discuss this (and other issues with your conduct at AfD) with you at your talkpage (); (5) and, yet, despite all of this you still persist in your belief that that sentence given above equates to saying that all primary schools are non-notable; and (6) because you vote '''delete''' at all Primary School AfDs on the basis of this completely flat out wrong interpretation, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue in your conduct at AfD. ˜danjel 13:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, this just illustrates the problem. The problem is that you keep saying I'm completely wrong and incompetent over and over again. You respond to my thread by saying...I'm completely wrong and incompetent. That completely illustrates the problem, as a) I'm not completely wrong and incompetent (recall that many editors have agreed with me in Epeefleche's AfDs; and that <<10% have been closed as keep, indicating that consensus hasn't changed); and b) even if I was, you shouldn't be bringing it up hither and yon like you're doing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkativerata

User:Mkativerata referred to me as as wikipedia's class clown in an edit summary. I have attempted to discuss and resolve it on his talkpage but he has just repeated the comment. I find his references to me as "a clown" and " a class clown" to be demeaning and rude and would appreciate some assistance towards a resolution here. I have notified the user - Youreallycan 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As the user has added - retired to his talkpage, I will put this  On hold awaiting any return or not as the case may be. Youreallycan 00:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata was a valuable editor and admin and it's a shame he felt compelled to turn in his tools and leave over this nonsense. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself - as this nonsense is such a minor issue - that the user was requested, in good faith to resolve on the first, most minor level of dispute resolution, perhaps there are other issues that we are unaware of, and this minor issue is not the reason behind his actions at all. - clearly calling me a class clown is not a reason, or could ever result in such recriminations and repercussions to require anyone to request removal of their advanced privileges and retire. Youreallycan 00:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the exchange that lead to all this, it strikes me that there's plenty of blame to go around. I would encourage Youreallycan to see his/her own role in the exchange, and to review WP:BRD as well as WP:3RR and WP:EDIT. --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no justification for personal attacks. YRC is not responsible for any other editor's actions. Mkativerata's decision to retire is theirs and on one else's. Nobody Ent 12:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the motivation was, but User:Hipocrite opened this section on Mkativerata's Talk page before YRC complained about the clown comment. Like 28bytes, I have trouble believing that Mkativerata would retire because of YRC's complaint (I wouldn't have characterized it as "nonsense", though).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can we close this please. In addition to the above, the user has requested removal of their admin bits and there is no need to work out who was right and who was wrong. Whatever the cause, the best thing now would be to quietly close discussions like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

cliques with an agenda

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

I do not want to name names or articles, but there seems to be some cliques who get their way when they should not. I am going to be intentionally vague because nothing I have done to date has worked, and only made it worse for myself. In general, this is what has happened:

There is a hot button issue that seems to lead to a lot of debates on wikipedia. This particular debate seems to have at least one administrator as the ringleader of a clique. Individuals associated with this person make edits which violate wikipedia rules, not because of the words used, but because they are done because of preference and not for reason. For some people, these edits may be minor, and they are probably overlooked most of the time. However, when someone does restore these edits, the administrator swoops in and warns/blocks them. They then use the advantage of a ready-made group in order to win if numbers are necessary--even if their arguments go directly against wikipedia rules. When one person sought help through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, every single comment from outside their small group agreed that they were in the wrong. There was a clear consensus, yet in the end, they said it needed to go to another board. On that board, the same thing, yet it got passed on to yet another non-binding noticeboard. Is there not a place on wikipedia where wikipedia's own rules can be enforce? You cannot win on a topic that goes up against a clique with one or more administrators. A group of 4 or 5 people should not be able to bog you down so they can get their way. That is not a true consensus. Faw05 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What would you like us to do about it? Nobody Ent 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on German cruiser Emden

Moved from ANI per (tentative) consensus it belongs here Nobody Ent 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise problems of inappropriate behaviour are not normally aired here, but this problem concerns one of Misplaced Pages’s sysops. Sysops are fully familiar with Misplaced Pages’s code of conduct so I have bypassed Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance and come here directly.

On 20/21 January User:Parsecboy nominated two articles for Good Article. On 5 February I volunteered to do the GA Review on both articles. Both articles contained numerous minor errors and omissions; I noted these on the Review pages and Parsecboy repaired them. See Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1 and Talk:SMS Nürnberg (1916)/GA1

I also used the Review pages to make suggestions and point out problems that I saw as worthy of repair in order to elevate the articles to GA status. Parsecboy has been reluctant to discuss my suggestions and has become increasingly diverted away from the task in hand. When I saw THIS post I realised Parsecboy was unlikely to help me resolve one particular problem so I decided to ask for a second opinion. I left a message for Sturmvogel 66, asking for his assistance. Sturmvogel 66 is one of the co-ordinators for the WikiProject Military History and has not been involved with German cruiser Emden. Here is the thread I started for Sturmvogel 66: User talk:Sturmvogel 66#Request for assistance.

Parsecboy has become increasingly angry at my attempts to resolve the problem I see. He used Sturmvogel’s Talk page to leave an angry message for me: diff

The GA process does not run on anger and intimidation. I am a volunteer. My objective is the same as Parsecboy’s – to raise these two articles to GA. I would appreciate it if one of Parsecboy’s fellow sysops or admins would leave him a message reminding him of the things he should be aware of about the GA process, but has apparently forgotten. Dolphin (t) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you would stop playing games, we can have a perfectly polite discussion. If that's not something you can do, then I suggest we clear the board and let someone else review the articles. I refuse to entertain someone who apparently has no grasp of Misplaced Pages's core content and requires blatant violations of WP:V and WP:OR to satisfy their requests. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

*blink* That little piece of WP:ABF is really what you want to reply with here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed out the policy problems of what Dolphin is insistent I change, and s/he has consistently failed to address them. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if Dolphin has behaved badly (I haven't looked at the evidence in enough detail) you should still be responding as calmly and courteously as possible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The diff you provided does not reflect proper conduct for an admin or any editor. However unless Parsecboy has used his admin tools to gain advantage during this dispute, then this is not an admin matter and should be raised via WQA. Manning (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, on both counts. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, the 13:04, 10 Feb edit clearly rises to the level for which civility/disruption warnings are given. We simply cannot speak to each other in that manner. Further, Dolphin51's opening of this thread was a thing of beauty: clear, concise, courteous. *tips hat* Is there further backstory at all? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Caveat:Have not looked further than those diffs yet.

How about this:

1. I point out that what Dolphin is requiring is OR
2. Dolphin completely ignores it
3. I state as much a second time
4. Lecture about dealing with contradictory sources, nevermind that there is no contradictory source, and still no comment on citing his claim
5. I point that out
6. Dolphin goes to Sturmvogel with a similarly one-sided summary like the one above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a moment and re-read those diffs as if they were someone else's, and see if they match the descriptions you've just given? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point to where Dolphin engages with the issue of original research?

His objection is that the Germans could not have installed a degaussing coil on the ship between the outbreak of World War II and the operation the ship participated in on 3 September 1939, since Misplaced Pages states the war began on 3 September. Nevermind that many historians use 1 September as the start date, which easily explains the imagined discrepancy, because Dolphin summarily dismisses it. What this dispute boils down to is that Dolphin thinks Williamson is wrong and wants me to change it, despite not having any sources to back it up. How is that not violating OR and V? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What you're calling "original research" is actually good GA review. He's correct, that the 1st-to-3rd chronology is a remarkable claim. Remarkable claims require a higher standard of evidence. He's actually being very calm and kind in this discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)

Please, do explain how requesting that something be changed without a source is anything but OR? In what manner is it a remarkable claim? It's the installation of a degaussing coil, not a complete overhaul. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict)There are five WP pillars and editing requires balancing all of them. WP:V does not mean we print untrue things (as the perennial discussion on WT:V regarding rephrasing "verfiability not truth" indicates). Dolphin appears to be trying to reconcile different sources; when it became clear Dolphin and Parsecboy were just not going to agree, they requested help from additional editors, which is the right thing to do per consensus. This is the wrong thing to do per our civility pillar. It's okay to disagree and strongly argue a position but personal attacks are wrong. If parsecboy truly thinks the situation is unsalvageable then a new reviewer for the article should be appointed.

• Parsecboy, will you strike your personal attacks coments from sturmvogel's talk page?
• Dolphin, would you be willing to withdraw from the GA and let another reviewer finish? Nobody Ent 13:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Swearing =/= personal attack. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The swearing shows that you aren't being calm and courteous, but the swearing isn't what makes it a personal attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Explain where I insulted Dolphin or made threats. I'm all ears. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • This diff -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Again, where did I insult or threaten him? Where did I use an ad hominem attack? Perhaps you need some familiarization with WP:NPA#WHATIS. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm well aware as to what a personal attack is, "Have you ever even read WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:CITE" and "Fail the article, I don't really care. I will immediately re-nominate it so someone with a basic grasp of Misplaced Pages content policies can review it." stand out to me as being a personal attack, and "Too fucking bad, you don't make the rules. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit." is certainly a violation of our civility policy, one of the pillars of the project.
            • PS from your link These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution