Misplaced Pages

:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:13, 5 August 2012 editStillStanding-247 (talk | contribs)4,601 edits →It feels like a pile-on: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 19:20, 5 August 2012 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →It feels like a pile-on: polite commentNext edit →
Line 308: Line 308:


I'm here on the advice of ], in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to ] or even ]. ] (]) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I'm here on the advice of ], in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to ] or even ]. ] (]) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

:I suggest you find ''actual evidence'' of a cabal before making ''any'' such assertions here. From what I have seen, you made a great number of contentious edits in a very active manner in the political silly-season area, and with a propensity to revert when people pointed out that you should read ] and ]. Else you may, indeed, be faced with community-imposed sanctions. Cheers. `] (])

Revision as of 19:20, 5 August 2012

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    Active discussions

    New editor having issues with TheRedPenOfDoom


    I am writing this to you tonight because of repeated tagging and disputes between myself and User:TheRedPenOfDoom regarding articles I am writing. I have stated many times that the articles contain seed material and I am working to get more contributions from subject matter experts, academics and the interested public at large, but this user keeps insisting that I am trying to keep my "non-encyclopedic" articles locked down and essentially assuming that it will not resolve itself on it own.

    I have asked this user multiple times to leave me and the articles I am working on alone to no avail. Each request for them to back off brings another barrage of finger pointing and false accusations.

    Please advise me how to handle the situation so that I may continue my writing in peace.

    Jssteil (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    I will just say that the tags are not "locking down" the articles, but quite the opposite, encouraging readers and editors to pitch in. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Again, you misunderstand me and twist things around...please re-read my comment above. I am referring back to your previous posts on my talk page insinuating that I do not want anyone editing these articles when that is absolutely not true. I know that the tags are not locking down the articles, but they do distract from them especially with the biased comment that is left in the description. It is not a copy-paste from research papers, but rather summaries from them. The actual papers are 50-60 pages longer with much more in depth technical analysis. The Radiation Carcinogenesis article I have created is very much a high-level overview that does not include research or analysis.
    To the moderator - All I wish is for this user to leave me alone and to make useful contributions to the articles I create, instead of criticizing the content when the topic is of no concern to them. It seems as though as soon as I appeared on their radar, they have found something wrong with everything I do which is very discouraging and very distracting. Again, please advise me how to handle this situation. Jssteil (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with TRPoD's assessment of your contributions and the tags added. Furthermore, I don't see how this is an Wikiquette issue. OhNoitsJamie 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Tags are there to encourage others to help with the issues (and issues there are). Remember that articles aren't owned. Anyone can edit any article. Criticism of the article, when constructive, is important to helping to flag issues and so improve the articles. Article quality is the concern of every editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    I understand that the tags are there to help and I claim no ownership of the articles. I also welcome any constructive criticism and suggestions on how to make these articles better. I am encouraging people to come and edit. What is not seen are the hundreds of e-mails that are currently being sent encouraging subject matter experts to come and make contributions.
    All I want is for this editor to please back off and be patient as the content I added is meant to be seed material for contributors to expand on. Jssteil (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you would be interested in finding a mentor to help you work through and begin to better understand Misplaced Pages's culture and practices. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with adding seed material, but the tags help to direct others to expand upon the seed material. Tags aren't there to provide warnings but direct efforts to improve articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    I am taking this page off my watch list. Please ping me if there is additional conversation to which I should be a participant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Jssteil, I am speaking to you as an un-involved and hence neutral third party, you owe Pen an apology. There is nothing more wrong than to say that you are right and we are wrong, the way I see it is that you have over-reacted and didn't want to ask Pen for pointers as to how best to go about with your business of adding your information. FYI, you can always create your own WP:Sandbox to draft up your idea while the WP:Main namespace of the actual article page undergoes the update with those tags hung on. FWIW, we are all volunteers, here to help with the project and if Pen had not did what he did, I would have done so myself. Note that both Pen and I, we are established editors with more than 20,000 edits under our belt, we know what we are doing and now having an Admin telling you this WQA was really an uncalled-for is something you should really take heart of. --Dave 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not what the admin actually said. There's lots of things more wrong. It would be wrong to say you're a holocaust denier, for example. One of the main purposes of this board is education, and it's much better to have a lost newbie end up here than nasty places like ANI. (I have less than 1,000 mainspace edits, but I'm right anyway.) Nobody Ent 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Pointing to one's edit count as evidence that one is "right", is no more useful than pointing to the person's block log as evidence that they are "wrong". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    Issues with DreamMcQueen

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere – indefinitely blocked following ANI report Nobody Ent 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


    Since making edits to articles on several Chicago television stations in early July, I have run into a dispute with DreamMcQueen. The dispute began with edits to the lead sections of the articles of WGN-TV, WWME-CA, WLS-TV and the like, to which DreamMcQueen promptly reverted due to the edits not being up to his tastes; though they fall within WikiProject Television Stations article structure guidelines, particularly the note that all TV articles require a "good introduction" (which in mine, includes a properly prosed first line, mentions of physical and virtual channels, location of transmitter and studio location , and a fairly short list of syndicated programs the station runs (carefully trying not to violate certain WP:NOT rules for the latter by omitting airtimes for syndicated programs and typically limiting the number of listed titles to no more than five or six), DreamMcQueen has unfairly criticized them as being extraneous, even though the type of information I included is featured in other articles.

    Among the criticisms that DreamMcQueen has levied include this message left on my talk page on July 9:
    "I'm gonna write the same thing to you that I did to another user: the quality of your edits are, in my opinion, poor and contribute very little. This is nothing personal against you. However, you go from insisting on listing every station that is scheduled to carry the new Arsenio Hall Show next year to taking a page from the Neutralhomer/Strafidlo template with wordy and overly technical introductory paragraphs on those Chicago television station articles. Before you label someone as a "vandal" and "disruptive" and issue threatening stop warnings (as you did me, which I promptly deleted from my talk page), perhaps you should get pointers on how to make more constructive contributions and not mimic someone else, whether it be a industry website or another editor."

    I want to stress that I based my edits around Neutralhomer and Strafidlo's, not to copy them, but because their edits had better prose, were properly worded, were informative without crossing the line into miscellanei and were in general, better edited, especially in comparison to my own edits (I admit my editing style wasn't as great when I started here six years ago, but I have gotten better. Compare this sentence:
    "'''KMBC-TV, channel 9, is a television station affiliated with the ABC television network, located in Kansas City, Missouri. KMBC-TV is owned by Hearst Television and its studios are located near Swope Park in Kansas City, Missouri. The station's transmitter is located in eastern Kansas City, near the Blue River. KMBC-TV also serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for St. Joseph, Missouri, available over-the-air in most of the market and on local satellite providers and select cable systems such as Suddenlink; this is despite the presence of KQTV (channel 2), which is the market's official ABC affiliate and is carried alongside KMBC on some cable systems in the market."
    With this one, edited by me:
    "KMBC-TV is the ABC-affiliated television station for the Kansas City metropolitan area that is licensed to the Missouri side. It broadcasts a high-definition digital signal on virtual channel 9.1 (or UHF digital channel 29) from a transmitter at the East 23rd Street/Topping Avenue intersection in Kansas City, Missouri's Blue Valley section. Owned by Hearst Television, KMBC-TV is sister to CW affiliate KCWE and the two outlets share studios on Winchester Avenue in the city's Swope Park Ridge-Winchester section along I-435. Although the Saint Joseph market has an ABC affiliate of its own in the form of KQTV (channel 2), KMBC serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for the area as its transmitter provides a city-grade off-air signal in St. Joseph proper, and it is available on cable and satellite in the area alongside KQTV."

    In regards to the Arsenio Hall show mention, I did not list all the stations that picked up the program, I merely mentioned a few on one edit, and then Dream McQueen reverted this edit:
    "On June 18, 2012, Hall and CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by CBS Television Stations, Tribune Broadcasting (which will have priority clearance over CBS-owned CW, MyNetworkTV and independent stations in six markets, including New York City and Los Angeles) and Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program", and reverted it twice (the other was an undo by ShawnHill of the revert) to: "On June 18, 2012, Hall and CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by CBS Television Stations, Tribune Broadcasting, and Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program."
    DreamMcQueen ignored the fact that the mention of Tribune having priority clearance of the program over CBS in some markets was explicity implied in the reference that I included from Broadcasting & Cable.

    The fact that DreamMcQueen has reverted articles on stations from three different cities suggests a troll/vandal characteristic, by tracking down someone else's edits and them willfully reverting them with little credence to manual of style. I have also looked into whether other users have run into problems with this user and came upon instances of edit wars with other users such as Fairlyoddparents1234. Unfortunately, it seems that DreamMcQueen is more than willing to criticize others for how they edit rather than abiding by Misplaced Pages guidelines and ignore what the consensus suggests for his own personal style that is making it hard for others to edit on certain pages without worrying that their work will be unfoundedly rejected because the editor chooses to use a demeanor when editing as if claiming ownership of articles. When a message sent by DreamMcQueen was sent to my talk page on July 30, I just chose not to respond back even though my gut told me to explain to him calmly (as I did before) that his edits don't goes against the consensus, because there is just no getting through to him/her. I need this issue settled in a manner that is concise and thorough, so I can continue to edit these TV station articles without worry of unworthy rejections of my edit submissions. TVtonightOKC (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    User:Bryonmorrigan


    Mr. Morrigan seems to think that it is reasonable to call other editors "Holocaust deniers" using "Apologetics for murderers." And "And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything

    I had asked politely at for a redaction.

    TFD also asked for a redaction at as well. Those acquainted will surmise that TFD and I are not in any way in the category of "Holocaust deniers" or "Neo-Nazis."

    Mr. Morrigan has several times been mentioned on noticeboards for this sort of attack. Including routinely calling other editors "Holocaust deniers" and the like. , , etc.

    I suggest that Mr. Morrigan be advised in no uncertain terms to redact all such attacks, to apologize for all such attacks, and be advised that any further such attacks will be strictly dealt with by the community. Collect (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    • At this point, there are principally four editors involved in those discussions: the three listed above, and me. I agree in large part that Bryon has been needlessly personal and combative in the way he addresses Collect and TFD in these discussions. I, too, would appreciate it if Bryon would just focus on the content and sourcing (which he does very competently), without speculating on Collect's and TFD's motives. On the other hand, Collect too needs to take on board similar advice. Collect is far too quick to escalate instead of de-escalate. Collect exaggerates his points about content (claiming recently that the page said that Southern Baptists in the US fund violence in India, when the page does not say it). Bryon didn't quite say that Collect is a Holocaust denier, but made a moral equivalency between Holocaust denial, and editing that arguably deflects responsibility from alleged Christian terrorists, so Bryon was wrong in my opinion to make the comparison, but Collect is wrong to frame it as a label applied to himself. Collect also responds with sarcasm when it would be better not to respond at all. And there is too much last-wordism in the discussion, from all three editors named above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Bryonmorrigan's edit is an egregious personal attack and wholly unacceptable. For context, this edit arose during a discussion about whether or not a group should be considered "Christian terrorists". Collect had pointed out the source Bryonmorrigan presented had referred to claims against this group as having been made by "extremists". That seems to be a fair comment, and Bryonmorrigan should have presented another source, rather than questioning motives. Collect however has never questioned whether this group is predominantly Christian or whether they have carried out terrorist activity, just whether they meet the criteria for inclusion in the article. TFD (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    No, Collect said that because one of the sources, OUT OF MANY, said, "Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions," means that the "we should ascribe the claim of "forced conversions" per that source to "Radical Hindu religious groups" and not assert it was a fact." When I pointed out that there were numerous other news articles describing these forced conversions and other "nasty" behavior, he responded with, "And you ignore what one of the sources in the article clearly states - that the claims are by "radical Hindu" and not "fact, and you seem to think the Encyclopedia of India and the Hindustan Times are also wrong becasue you "know" that the evil Christians rape and murder Hindus there. Sorry -- your POV is showing far too clearly here." I responded by linking a few of the other news articles referencing the forced conversions and other issues. Note also that the Hindustan Times only said the above (that certain groups claim that these events happened...not that they didn't happen), and the Encyclopedia of India was only cited to "prove" that missionary activity had been occurring peacefully since the 1800s...which is not a fact in dispute, nor one that "proves" that these particular groups don't engage in forced conversions. This is exactly the kind of absurd "fake logic" used by Holocaust Deniers, and used for similar reasons: Apologetics...not facts. Apparently, he thinks if he repeats a lie often enough, it will become fact... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    The Hindustan Times is a reliable source. Really. And its claim is eminently clear - but BM seems to think that anyone who uses such a source is a "Holocaust denier" or "Neo-Nazi" and his second post after being politely requested to redact the charge, is a real problem here. Also note that the Encyclopedia of India is also a reliable source, as are many others like the New York Times which do not back up the POV sought. Cheers. The issue here, moreover, is the egregious misconduct of BM. And shown by his unwise claim just above that:
    if he repeats a lie often enough, it will become fact.
    Quod erat demonstrandum regarding his incivility utterly here as well. (Calling an editor a liar has generally been found to be a personal attack) Collect (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    See what I mean? Neither the Hindustan Times, nor the Encyclopedia of India, says that the forced conversions didn't happen. Although Indo-Asian News Service and the BBC say they did. He ignores every link that treats them as fact, and takes the one that, while not in any way saying they didn't happen, just mentions that the claims come from another group, to somehow claim that this "proves" that it's all a farce...and that none of this ever happened. The more he types, the more he proves that my original comparison was completely, 100%, apt. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    And I ask you sir "Have you no shame?" -- you were brought here for incivility and personal attacks and all you do is double down on making ever worse attacks? When a strong reliable source makes a statement - and all you do is attack the person who points it out as a "Neo-Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" and you add material to the article such as I suggest is is now well past time for you to be "estopped" from such acts and attacks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I DID just add material to the article...FROM A PEER-REVIEWED, NON-INDIAN JOURNAL. I even just copied and pasted the many examples throughout the article which back up that addition to the talk page. Of course, I'm sure you'll just come up with another fake "reason" that all of the academics in question are just "making stuff up" to besmirch the "good name" of Christianity, or some other absurd nonsense. Good luck with that, chief. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Holocaust denial is not just "fake logic", it is part of a strategy used by anti-Semites in order to bring public hatred and violence against Jews. It is normally considered a crime. And the groups that promote holocaust denial are filled with people who have records for assault and other crimes. The implication of your charge is that Collect is condoning violent actions against Hindus based on prejudice. Surely this is quite a leap of logic and an extremely offensive charge that does nothing to further discussion. TFD (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    And how do they do that? Dismissal of the official record, and challenging the accounts of the victimized. Collect is doing exactly that, and he's doing it to "prove" that the NLFT is not a Christian Terrorist group, and that they don't conduct forced conversions, or do anything else "bad" in the name of Christianity. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Not seeing personal attacks. Am seeing overwrought rhetoric. I'd encourage all involved editors to stop discussing other, stop discussing motivations of editors, and try to come to consensus on the content. I see an RFC has been started (good) but has degraded into more back and forth (not so good). Perhaps you could all take a break and wait for some other editors to comment? Nobody Ent 23:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    What must someone say before it meets your criteria for a personal attack? TFD (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well, they're really Misplaced Pages's criteria not mine per se. My operational criterium is "if I push this to ANI would their be overwhelming support that it was a personal attack, as indicated by a block or warning being issued?" In practice, the factors I look for are:
    • Is the comment direct or indirect? "You're a fucking moron" is easily in the PA realm, where as "that's moronic" would probably slide.
    • How egregious is the characterization? "POV-pusher," "puritan," and will likely slide, where as troll, facist, etc. are more likely PA.
    • What's the context? A phrase made as part of a discussion of context will get more of a pass that a bare insult, and an established user that is correct on policy gets more of a pass than a COI or POV or new editor.
    • What's the history? A comment made in response to a slightly less snarky comment gets more of a pass than a totally over the top escalation. Nobody Ent 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    I strangely enough consider "Neo-Nazi"' and "Holocaust denier" to be about as bad as one can get. In fact, the use of such language is pretty much about as egregious as one can get on any public forum. As for history - did you read the diffs given where he has been called to task in the past for similar behaviour? Where there was a recent complaint from another editor about his behaviour? How much history does one need here? BM routinely uses such attacks on many pages, and that is why this WQA was filed - to tell him that he should neveer try this sort of attack again. And pray tell why would "moron" be worse than calling someone a "Holocaust denier" and "Neo-Nazi"? Seems your values are temporarily inverted. Collect (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    In his initial statements, Bryon did not say that you or TFD are Holocaust deniers, or that you are neo-Nazis. He said that your positions were bad, and compared the degree of that badness to the degree of badness of Holocaust denial. Not that he was right to do that, of course. But it was your responses to Bryon that escalated the conflict into one in which you were supposedly actually called a neo-Nazi. Escalation is what eventually leads to sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    BM in separate incidents not connected with what you perceive to be TFD's and my "escalation" (note that TFD is also upset at BM here) : he should be treated like a Holocaust Denier, Until then, have fun with their conspiracy theories and pseudohistorical revisionism, which really is no better than Holocaust Denial, is like adding sources who are Holocaust Deniers to the page on the Holocaust as "credible" sources. What you are trying to do is called "Newspeak," and is a deliberate distortion of the historical record, solely for propaganda purposes, and so on. Not just to me, but use of intemperate language to many editors. And while I appreciate yor position on the article talk page in support of BMs edits, I fear I demur on your defence of his language here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Honest advice, please take it or leave it: I've agreed with you all along that Bryon's use of language is too confrontational. I've never believed that you are a Nazi, and neither would anyone else reading the discussions. You should declare victory, and shrug it off, and move on. I say this as someone who has been told on my talk page that I ought to commit suicide. It appears that I haven't done it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • In an ideal situation, the purpose of opening a WQA thread is to get advice from someone who hasn't previously been involved. That's what Nobody Ent has provided, and I think that he is correct. Unfortunately, what's happening here is what's happening at the article talk page and at the geopolitical noticeboard: three editors all trying endlessly to get the Last Word in. If the three of you continue to insist on it, the dispute may have to move up the dispute resolution chain, but please understand that everyone involved will be subject to scrutiny. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note what I asked for ab initio - that BM be told not to use such language. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    And I, for one, endorsed that part of your request. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    Continued accusations of bad faith by Bwilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves

    A couple weeks ago, a tendentious editor (now blocked with his sock, as can be seen here and here if anyone wants to make sure I'm not lying) was reported on ANI for refusing to discuss his fraudulent and fringe edits after a many dozen warnings. Bwilkins discouraged anyone from blocking the editor, as if refusing to discuss anything after dozen final warnings wasn't enough rope to hang him with. After about a week, the tendentious editor went back to his usual game, finally earning a block on the 26.

    On July 25 (over a week ago), I left a messages on Bwilkin's talk page asking him to take responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him. Under his sockpuppet account EatsShootsAndLeaves (DangerousPanda), he left a message on my talk page saying that Bwilkins "cannot" make the block as "they're" away. I changed the message from a request to an update, and dropped the issue. Yesterday (a week after I left the message), after it was all over with, EatsShootsAndLeaves digs the issue up and accuses me of bad faith.

    WP:AGF says we're to assume that a person's intentions are good. I have. WP:AGF does not say that we cannot point out mistakes, and it does not say that we cannot question an administrator's course of action. That is what I did. AGF does, however, say we are not to make unfounded accusations of bad faith. That is what Bwilkins did.

    I pointed this out, and asked why he logged in as someone else to say that he could not (not just would not, but "cannot") make the block, even though he could log in. I did not question his intentions, I assumed that he is acting in a way he believed would help the site. I said I believe he made a mistake. In response to this, he continued to accuse me of bad faith.

    The discussion, before it was partly removed (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his right), and archived (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his rights), may be found here.

    As I said before and again, I left a message a week ago pointing out a mistake, questioning a course of action, and (after he dug it up) eventually his responsibility, but at no point did I question his intentions to help the site. He was totally welcome to leave it alone, but he dug it up with an accusation of bad faith, and responded to defense against such accusations and questions about his capacity as an assault on his intentions.

    Since he appears to decide that anything I post that he doesn't like is an accusation of bad faith, I quit posting on his page. Since he made that clear while continuing to accuse me of bad faith, I decided to come here.

    Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    And now he's calling me a tendentious editor, without evidence, over an issue that WP:NPOV doesn't even begin to factor into. That is nothing but a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    How do you know ESAL = Bwilkins? Nobody Ent 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    When he first dug it up, I thought ESAL was a different user who decided a comment I directed at Bwilkins was directed at him. He admitted it was him when I asked why he was defensive over something I directed at Bwilkins, and found on his userpage a userbox saying he was a legitimate sock for Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not seeing it -- can you link to the page with userbox? Nobody Ent 23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)On User:EatsShootsAndLeaves (at added here), there's a userbox saying "This user is an alternative account of someone with tens of thousands of edits, and they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry." "Someone with tens of thousands of edits" is a link to Bwilkins name. ESAL also asked that I spell his name right when I misspelled Bwilkins's name, and was defensive over a statement I directed to Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    Although I truly have no need to respond here, let me just state the following:

    1. in the original ANI mentioned, the OP was increasingly rude, and adamant that someone needed to block a problematic editor, and refused to accept that the general desire was to attempt other means where possible. Blocking is always the last resort. Indeed, the resolution could have worked
    2. following the ANI, the editor-who-needed-to-be-blocked actually promised to mend their ways, but then broke the promise
    3. the OP's first post on User talk:Bwilkins includes a direct accusation that because I refused to block them a week earlier, I had "unleashed" them to further harm the project, and as such, it was my personal responsibility to fix the problem. (You cannot get more bad-faith than to lay such blame)
    4. their continued returns to User talk:Bwilkins quite clearly show them belabouring a poor point, and continuing to insist as per above.

    There's certainly no place on this project for badgering an admin for having done the right thing, simply because they didn't like it. Nothing but bad faith towards either the now-blocked editor, Misplaced Pages's goals, or me. I disengaged, and advised the editor to stay off my talkpages if this continued bad faith was still their goal - as such, they should have had someone else notify me of this WQA filing, as it's mere proof of their continued bad faith. dangerouspanda 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    Please provide a diff or a link of my rudeness. I defended myself from being told to shut up by users who confused me with someone else who admittedly did get snippy, who didn't want to get involved except to snark and didn't bother helping with the issue at all after. As I pointed out, if the users I defended myself from were WP:SPAs, they would have been blocked for trolling.
    The editor's promise to mend his ways was almost immediately followed by breaking said promise.
    My original post on User talk:Bwilkins said explained the various problems with then unblocked editor, said that the time to assume good faith with him was over, and said "he needs to be blocked, and it is only appropriate that you do it." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    The EatsShootsAndLeaves account is linked to Bwilkins, so it's not a sockpuppet (although I'd prefer the link be made more explicitly). Talk page "bans" are a courtesy, not an enforceable policy; however if an editor tells someone to stay off their talk page they can't then reasonably complain about a lack of notification. As indicated by User_talk:Bwilkins, Bwilkins is not currently functioning as an admin, so there's not a problem with them refusing the unblock; however Bwilkins communication regarding his status has been cryptic.
    My recommendations are:
    • As the editor in question has been blocked by another admin, Ian Thompson just let it go and move on.
    • Bwilkins be more explicitly clear in their talk page statement, perhaps changing "user" to "account" in the User_talk:Bwilkins statement.
    • If Bwilkins chooses to make further comments regarding the Bwilkins account using the ESAL account to be explicitly clear from the get-go that ESAL is a Bwilkins alternate account. Nobody Ent 11:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    I did dropped the blocked editor issue over a week ago, that was context. A week later (couple days ago), ESAL comes in and accuses me of bad faith against him, a week after he first read the message and responded to it the first time. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    I agree with Nobody Ents perspective in that the alternative account isn't clearly marked enough (and his comments refer to himself in the third person), but that Ian Thompson just needs to let the issue go: that includes not interacting with bwilkins when you didn't need to. I also think Ian Thompson should be careful about calling something a sockpuppet, and also that requesting an admin who acted reasonably by not blocking another user to "admit" a mistake and perform the block himself is unnecessarily adversarial. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Scjessey


    Claims were made in the Thomas Sowell article which were violative of WP:BLP (contentious claims about a person sourced solely to an editorial opinion of MMfA, and not labelled as an opinion, but claimed as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice) and where a discussion at WP:BLP/N resulted in agreement on that point.

    Scjessey then proceeds to call me a liar repeatedly, even using the "BS" word in his vituperation.

    He stated: No such discussion exists on BLP/N, so basically you are using lies to push your POV at

    He templates me at which I found interesting as my reverts per the requirements of WP:BLP were two in number and absolutely per WP:BLP as noted at BLP/N.

    He also said at No such discussion took place so I reverted the edit. Using lies to force a POV is not good And at Bullshit, Collect. The "finding" is that there was no finding. It descended into a stupid argument. The majority of people supported MMfA being used, however, so now you can add edit warring to lying and POV pushing.

    In short, he seems to think that calling another editor a liar is acceptable behaviour on Misplaced Pages, and leaving templates on regulars is also a bit weird per normal WQA.

    I asked him to redact at which is temperately worded Your accusation of lies' I suggest you redact, as that is a personal attack. Cheers

    I know this is political silly season, but his edit war to include material which fails WP:BLP and WP:V (it asserts as "fact" an opinion from a group known to have political opinions on a column which a clear reading shows not to make any explicit "comparison" (Scjessey says it is enough to read an "implicit" comparison <g>) and asserts such opinions about several living persons) should be noted here, as well as his porpensity to ignore WP:AGF and WP:NPA inter alia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    Appending: a long screed wherein he displays intenperate views of living people (including labelling tham as "idiot"s) and accusing me of "too involved in this to think rationally" - he needs a bit of a gallon of tea as a minimum when his response to a polite request to redact an attack gets into this length on his part. Cheers. BTW, since others also find it a "BLP issue" I think you might like to listen to them as well. Collect (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ -- As I iterated above and on the article talk page, and at BLP/N etc., MMfA's opinions must be labelled as opinion -- it is the labelling of their opinion as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice which everyone objects to. Collect (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ again - the "misleading edit summary" was exactly correct and accurate -- that you accuse me of "changing my story" is simply digging your own hole deeper word-by-word. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    That wasn't your stance before. Your stance was to simply revert with a misleading edit summary. Now you change your story. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    Nice one, Collect. You can now add wikilawyering to the growing list of stuff (edit warring, misleading edit summaries, POV-pushing, lying et al) you're amassing on your Misplaced Pages résumé. That Media Matters for America is somehow more biased than the likes of Sarah Palin and Louie Gohmert is a fantasy. MMfA is a reliable source offering a notable opinion about a notable column by a notable writer, and you are blocking its inclusion because you don't like it, claiming it's a BLP issue. Shame on you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    There's clearly a BLP/N discussion. Calling another editor a liar is pretty much always inappropriate -- lie means falsehood with intent to deceive and we rarely actually know another editor's intent. It'd be best for involved parties to strictly focus on content and stop discussing each other -- continued escalation won't benefit Misplaced Pages or any of the involved editors. Note WP:DTR is an essay, as is WP:TR, so posting a template is not a policy violation. In fact, because templates use generic wording, it may, at times, be preferable to use them instead of intemperate words written in the heat of the moment. (If an editor doesn't like a template on their page I encourage them to simply remove it without comment.) Nobody Ent 15:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    We should comment on the edit, not the user, and avoid unparliamentiary language. One may say for example that a comment is inaccurate without accusing another editor of being deliberately misleading. TFD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's needlessly inflaming; accusations that Collect is not assuming good faith here. I don't see any evidence that he is posting here to get the upper hand in a content dispute. Treat what happens here as having no implications on any content dispute; except for possibly helping to resolve issues of perceived incivility. For example, it is fairly common practice for posts to be made here during other forms of dispute resolution to deal with specific issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    Scjessey knows, and quite often owns his...harshness. He knows, this board is pointless. Arkon (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Niteshift36 uncivil


    My first time having to do this but I would like a discussion on the uncivil behavior of Editor Niteshift36. To quote some of his posts, "Since you are apparently struggling with reading comprehension," "If it offends you, that's your problem. " and "First off, don't tell me about my bias. You don't know half of what you think you know. " he needs to be reigned in, just because a few of us do not agree with him does not mean he can abuse us. Warcraftninjas (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: I have edited this report for format only, no endorsement of the matter reported should be implied. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Snowcream

    We had some content disputes previously. But my contention is regarding the uncivil comments of Snowcream, especially these two: 1 and 2. He accuses other editors or authors with Christian names as fanatics or evangelists which I tried to correct in the 1st occasion itself (see my reply). However, the second time he has personally attacked, equating me with fanatics, without any provocation in that line. In fact, my modifications in Kerala were according to the guidance I got from User:Drmies on my request here. Now, his comment has really hurted me and hence I'm here. I'm not asking to punish him, but he should be corrected and brought to the world of civility. AshLey 09:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    While I'm not seeing anything particularly amiss with the first diff provided, the "user's agenda is typical of Christian fanatics in Kerala" in the second is unnecessary, doesn't particularly advance the content discussion and rude. I'd encourage Snowcream to focus on the topic and not characterize the other Misplaced Pages editors participating. Nobody Ent 11:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you for your kind consideration. However, I would like to invite your attention to the first diff once again, especially to this sentence:. "A 'theory' that a fringe evangelical author like Cyriac Pullapilly makes deserves no space is the section." Cyriac Pullapilly is a historian and I wonder how Snowcream could oppose citing him in WP saying that he is an evangelist. I agree that the comment was not personal attack against me, but rather it was against the author that too without any evidence. What I feel is that Snowcream finds all writers with a Christian name as evangelists (the 1st case) or fanatics (the second case). AshLey 12:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    The appropriateness of a source is a discussion for the reliable source noticeboard, and is a fairly common bone of contention across Misplaced Pages. Anytime a source is discounted, you have the option to follow various dispute resolution processes dangerouspanda 12:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    Ok, I accept your view that for the 1st case, it is not the proper forum and apologize for my mistake.

    AshLey 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    No apologies necessary -- Misplaced Pages dispute resolution isn't the most coherent system; I'm sure the purpose of the comment isn't to chastise for posting here but help you find the place that can best help you. Nobody Ent 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I agree with Ent. That remark was unproductive and, to play echo, it's the kind of remark that's typical of POV users. But it doesn't rise to the level that needs any kind of action, and if scrutiny of the user's particular POV leads to something it's not for this board. Sorry Ashley. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    It feels like a pile-on


    I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. At this point, I feel singled out and piled on.

    I ran into these people while working on adding citations and correcting provable bias in political articles, which led to some frenzied reverts and fruitless WP:DRN attempts. Things took a turn for the worse when Lionelt publicly discussed his plans to get me removed from Misplaced Pages. To show that this is an active plan, not some innocent editorializing, he followed up with an attempt to get me blocked for what looked to him like edit warring. This flopped for lack of substance, but one of my comments was misconstrued and used by Belchfire as the basis for a spurious ANI claim. The pièce de résistance was Lionelt's next 3RR report, which falsely claimed I hit 4RR . Even though the claim was false (and even after I revealed it to be false), the block stuck.

    Since then, I've barely edited at all, except in talk pages, but that hasn't slowed their efforts. I noticed ViiriK talking about me, but said nothing until the conversation switched to openly conspiring to harm an editor who had supported me. After I warned their victim, ViriiK struck back with an ANI , which got him nowhere. The latest attack, this time by Belchfire, is a secret fishing expedition claiming I'm a sock puppet, which will flop soon enough.

    Throughout all this, the three have acted as a bloc. They speak to each other and their allies in code phrases -- "a certain person", "M", and "our mutual friend" -- like they're stock characters in some badly-written spy novel, slinking around in alleys to exchange attache cases packed with military secrets. Their choice of covert language reveals that they know that what they're doing would not be seen as admirable. They've been absolutely unrelenting in their repeated attempts to get rid of me, and I think it's fair to say that WP:AGF is no longer relevant. While they've attacked me many times, and had only one small success so far, it's a game of odds and it's only a matter of time before they fill my score sheet with ever-lengthening blocks, an assigned mentor, some topic and interaction blocks, and eventually a community ban. To remind you, this is exactly what Lionelt promised to do in the first place.

    Just for contrast, consider that I haven't filed anything heavier than a few WP:DRN attempts that got mobbed to death by them. I'm not trying to make trouble, I'm trying to get them off my back so that I don't have to spend all of my time defending myself against false accusations and a concerted attempt to blacken my record and get me pushed out of Misplaced Pages. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sure does look like they're out to get me. :-)

    I'm here on the advice of User:Alanscottwalker, in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to WP:ANI or even WP:RFCC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    I suggest you find actual evidence of a cabal before making any such assertions here. From what I have seen, you made a great number of contentious edits in a very active manner in the political silly-season area, and with a propensity to revert when people pointed out that you should read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Else you may, indeed, be faced with community-imposed sanctions. Cheers. `Collect (talk)
    Category: