Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive48 

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents

Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereNot much we can do here about block-evading IP socks ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could take a look at this please. There's an edit war going on over a fairly trivial yes/no point, and it has degenerated to very uncivil comments. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the situation, I can't seem to find an answer anywhere, meanwhile the two editors in question are at it hammer and tongs. A resolution and/or a blocking would be very welcome. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that, after weeks of revert warring, this was being addressed by an admin while I typed the above post. Coincidence of the week! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The admin's actions aside, the fundamental matter has not been addressed and no solution has been found. The main question is whether the lyrics were proper content for the article. The secondary issue involves the behavior of the anonymous editor, who used multiple IPs to evade blocks and continue to engage in disruptive editing and personal attacks. Clearly, said behavior is inappropriate and cannot be permitted. Said anonymous editor has not made a case for the inclusion of the questioned content, and other editors have, in the edit history, made a case against same. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Your first point is the point I am struggling with - if there's any actual dispute there at all, it requires someone with a knowledge of fair use etc and whether or not the lyrics are considered essential to the article. The second point you raise, that of the behaviour of the IP editor, is a no-brainer - his remarks and general behaviour are totally unacceptable. Plus, if his is the only voice for the inclusion of the disputed content, I'd venture to suggest his voice be ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've commented on this at Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war. To cut to the chase, I'd say the Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is the main guideline to consider. The actual behaviour is unquestionably out: e.g. the repeated block-evading IP socks; this [1]; and the clear history of 74.230.99.202 pursuing RepublicanJacobite across unconnected topics with false accusations of vandalism [2]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Note further personal attacks from another IP sock 70.152.204.190 (talk · contribs) - [3], [4], [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, I saw this being handled at ANI a few days ago. (That "creative" twist on RJ's name is not something one forgets easily :/ ) In either case, the IP's behavior is obviously unacceptable, but there's not much we can do at WQA to deal with block-evading IP socks. Hopefully this was worked out at ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Skoojal

Resolved. This is English Wikipedia, and there are no gender neutral pronouns for living beings in the English language. Editors may chose to refrain from using pronouns altogether when referring to Whistling42

The problem I am having is that User:Skoojal is using inappropriate pronouns to describe me; ze is referring to me with female pronouns despite my request that ze stop.

At 23:22, 8 July 2008, I requested that Skoojal stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. At 23:33, 8 July 2008 (eleven minutes later), Skoojal used a female pronoun to describe me, blatantly defying my request. I find this action patently hostile and inflammatory.

It is as inappropriate for Skoojal to make an unfounded claim that I am a certain gender, as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim that I am a member of a certain religion. I would like to request that someone step in to make this distinct to Skoojal to avoid having to seek disciplinary action against this user. Whistling42 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I got your gender wrong, I got your gender wrong. So what? That's a mistake on my part, but it's not hostile. Skoojal (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have notified Skoojal of this thread. Hopefully he or she will honor your request. In fairness, he or she may not have noticed your initial request (it was part of another remark and could have been glossed over) so it was not necessarily a "patently hostile and infallmmatory" action on his or her part.
Incidentally, I have a question about this "ze" business. When you said, "...as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim...", you used "ze" as the object pronoun -- I thought it was only meant to be a subject pronoun? Shouldn't it be "zim" or "zer" or something if it is the object pronoun? Not to get off topic here, but if this artificial ungendered pronoun doesn't distinguish between grammatical subject and grammatical object, it creates more problems than it solves IMO... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, so, apparently Whistling42 objects to the use of the English language, as per here. I don't wish to make a federal case out of this, so my recommendation would be to never refer to Whistling42 using pronouns. This is English Wikipedia, and despite what Whistling42 may believe, there is no such word in the English language as "ze", and I am not going to start using a made-up word, nor am I going to ask anyone else to do so. I am marking this thread as resolved, since there is no reasonable request being made here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jay. We certainly have some control over what people will refer to us as that will fit into regular bounds of civility, at the same time, it's simply impossible and unreasonable to refuse not only he and she but also "he or she" and tell people to use a made up word. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's sort of weird for me to be in this position, because I'm actually kind of a stickler about avoiding gender-specific pronouns when I am not sure about the person's gender. I use "he or she" all the time, and in situations where it is appropriate and where "he or she" would be too awkward, I even user the singular "they".
It is quite unfortunate that English does not have a gender-neutral single pronoun (other than "it", which of course is quite insulting when used for a living being). I don't even necessarily object to someone taking it upon themselves to try and propagate the user of a made-up gender-neutral pronoun such as "ze" -- after all, that's how language changes, right? If "ze" were to appear in enough published texts, it could officially enter the language one day, and in theory that's all fine.
But I for one think "ze" sounds forced and artificial, even though I support the concept of a gender-neutral pronoun in theory. So I'm not going to use the word "ze," and it's not reasonable to ask other editors to do so either. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Gwynand: it is absolutely inappropriate to use "he or she" to describe a person who has specifically requested not to be referred to as "she" or as "he". If a person refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns on the grounds that they are neologisms, and if they refuse to use singular they due to a belief that it is grammatically incorrect, the only civil option is to refrain from using pronouns altogether. Whistling42 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I normally do not like to argue about such things, but since I am already involved I'll respond. "Absolutely inappropriate" is in your view, there is no hard and fast rule saying using he-or-she is incivil, offensive, inappropriate. I'm not going to get on your case for having an opinion on the matter, even if it is a minority one. I will say that while it is certainly your right to have a problem with such usage, it does not mean that the Wikipedia community or internet users in general will comply. In my humble opinion, they aren't being rude or unreasonable, but it appears we disagree on that point. I generally default to "he" on the internet, if I am corrected then I switch to "she". I have never in my memory seen anyone offended by this, even those that choose to stay 100% gender neutral in their online identity haven't complained to me. I believe the reason Jay originally said "wow", which I basically agreed with, is because the request you made didn't seem realistic and will prove to be problematic if insisted upon. In the end, you and I will disagree on considering such usages as uncivil, but it will never be my personal intent to offend you and I will likely go out of my way not to refer to your "gender", though it is totally improbably that the entire community will respond to such a request, and I hope you understand that and it won't continue to create issues with interactions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just want to echo the portion of Gwynand's comment where he or she promised to personally try to abide by your request. I will do so also. I just don't think you are going to have much luck getting everyone to abide by it, and I don't think the community is going to enforce your request. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I request that anyone should use "ze" to describe me. If you disagree, please provide a diff of the comment where I supposedly said such a thing. All I stated is that a user should stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. Provided that they do not use "it" or other inflammatory language, the choice is theirs. Whistling42 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ze is not just a "made-up" word but an attempt by many to find useful non-gender specific pronouns for a variety of reasons. As a default, using someones wikiname is an easy way to avoid these issues instead of making gender assumptions. Banjeboi 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I know this is flagged as resolved, but for future reference not everyone lives in the LGBT-o-sphere, and transgendered and third-gendered editors that have special requests or requirements for people referring to them should either note that on their userpage or not get too upset when someone mistakenly refers to them in the 3rd person as he or she. -- User0529 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
One doesn't need to be in the "LGBT-o-sphere" to avoid inferring gender, especially when editing articles related to ... gender and gender variation. We also should only need a civil reminder to avoid using a specific gender pronoun if it's been made clear that doing so is insulting. Simply using non-specific pronouns (they, their, etc.) or a username is all it takes. No need to try to get everyone on board to new-to-them gender terminology. Another possibility is what you just did, he or she, a perfectly reasonable alternative. University-level texts have been doing this since the 1980s so it's not a terribly new concept. Banjeboi 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If I may interject... I just want to point out that when I initially responded to this request, I said, "Ah hah, Whistling is right!" and asked Skoojal if he would please address Whistling using "he or she". I thought that was a perfectly reasonable solution, and in fact I already take care to use "he or she" when I am not sure. This only became an issue because, as Whistling said below, Whistling does not accept "he or she" either. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"He or she" is not a reasonable alternative; it enforces a binary and infers that the person identifies as one or the other, which may not be the case. Whistling42 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You will note that this issue has been listed as resolved. Your continuing to persue it is a distraction from more substantive issues. Skoojal (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max

User advised on WQA issue by Jaysweet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) McJeff has taken this to ANI --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Theserialcomma (talk · contribs)

The issue right now is that there is a disagreement on a criticism section in the article Tucker Max. User:Theserialcomma has been increasingly incivil. [6] Accuses me of vandalism, designates various malicious motives to me. Claims to be assuming good faith but clearly isn't. His lack of civility takes the form of long, rambling posts that briefly address the subject matter in dispute and then attack both my motives and me personally.

User has also been re-adding the disputed criticism section that I (and others) have been removing via WP:BLP, and calling it vandalism. [7] [8]. Also leaving harassing messages on my talk page [9].

I've tried both reasoning with him and being firm, but neither has worked. Theserialcomma is a new editor and I believe he simply doesn't know better, which is why I posted this here instead of at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the message in your talk page was "harassing", but you are right that Theserialcomma seems to be having a little trouble grasping WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL, etc. (Although I haven't looked really carefully yet, so it's possible Theserialcomma is right) I will advise Theserialcomma to try harder to assume good faith, and caution them about throwing around the V-word in situations where it is inappropriate (even if we assume TSC's additions are valid, your removal is clearly not intended as "vandalism," so that word is not correct or helpful here). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
for over 3 weeks i've been trying to add the criticism section under the consensus that a criticism section is warranted. i stated repeatedly that if the content added to the section is under dispute, it should be edited and made more acceptable, but not removed completely. everytime i added the criticism section though, mcjeff deleted the entire thing. while i admit to accusing mcjeff of vandalism, i meant it was vandalism in the sense that he was deleting an entire section instead of editing it to make it acceptable. he agreed it should be there, yet kept reverting its existence for around 3 weeks straight. if this is an improper use of the word vandalism, then i apologise. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This incident has been upgraded to an AN/I which can be found here. McJeff (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming WQA issues are sorted. If not, 'stuck' tag should be left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Copenhagen

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereNcmvocalist (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place. I posted it on the Vandalism warning-page, but it seems to be directed at the vandals and not the vandalism. Anyway Copenhagen has been seriously vandalized by hacking and the article history and talk pages cannot be accessed. I only have a Lilac Soul on my watchlist as the last one editing the article, but I doubt that that is the person responsible. Please revert the article if it is possible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats odd. Works fine for me as well now. Thanks for the response though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user 86.136.125.181

Resolved. As per WP:ENGVAR, this is appropriate when the subject is primarily related to one variant of English or the other

IP address 86.136.125.181 is constantly changing US English into UK English. Can someone take a close look? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like their changes are OK based on WP:ENGVAR. I'm not sure I see any wikiquette problems in any case. --Onorem♠Dil 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like Lycaon needs to read up on his rules before threatening to ban my IP. I'd never consider changing articles on the US, or other 'neutral' articles using US spelling to a different type of English. My edits are more to improve consistency of variety. 86.136.125.181 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:BigDunc - persistant incivility.

Resolved.

I have had a few run ins with this user in the past. However his behaviour over the past few days has deteriorated. This edit spawned this exchange on his talk page in which he went out of his way to attack me on an unrelated matter. Despite the fact that this user was subsequently banned this edit summary was utterly uncalled for. This edit summary was potentially inflammatory given the subject matter, which is a much debated topic. It has never been proved to my knowledge that anything was planted on that day. This user has been engaged in inappropriate behaviour over the past 24 hours. Perhaps an uninvolved contributor's input would be helpful.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm about as eager to jump into an Ireland/England debate as I am to jump into a Israel/Palestine debate, but I'll give it a whirl anyway.
Regarding the "idiot" edit summary when he removed content from his talk page, I don't think it's a big deal and I would be inclined to let it go. The guy got trolled by a sockpuppet -- that will piss anybody off. He wasn't calling the guy an "idiot" because if any Ireland/England history, he was calling the guy an idiot because he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. I don't have a problem with that.
The nasty argument you two got in on his talk page is more troubling, and he did appear to start the nastiness by calling you out on your presumed party allegiance (based on your username). I will leave him a note reminding him of this thread and suggesting that impugning your political allegiance was probably a Bad Idea, especially given that people tend to get a little upset about England/Ireland issues.
I don't really see "persistent" incivility though... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it as a big deal, but I didn't think calling me a troll was that civil. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=prev&oldid=225639113 Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. While I would not have bothered to warn over that issue, your comment was clearly in good faith. I will issue another warning, and hopefully BigDunc will get the point sooner rather than later. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all that is required is a word in his ear - this is as far as I'm concerned nowhere near deserving a block. These things can get out of hand, when I a user is less than civil to me, my first (stupid) instinct is to be just as rude back to them.. We can disagree, we don't have to put things on a personal level. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am marking as resolved, since it appears based on this that you two have worked out a truce :) Kudos for that! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User PainMan

Just leaving a heads up that I have warned PainMan (talk · contribs) for continued hostility and incivility. I won't bother to detail all of the violations here, but a quick browse through his contribution history (especially in the User Talk namespace) will give a good indication of my concerns. Comments from additional editors might be helpful. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Truthsayer62

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereto ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I submitted a group of articles under the AfD Process, and this user took offence, by removing the templates from the said articles, and now has started to edit my own user page. I'm not impressed by such activity. What do I do? (20040302 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

If his disruptive conduct stops, then that's that. If not, take it to WP:ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the comment on your User page, I think he just meant to put it on the User Talk page. Not sure if it was that he pressed the wrong button or if that he was unaware of the policy, but in any case I have moved the comment to your User Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, it's as if you read my mind; I thought the exact same thing. I went back in his contributions and he knows what a talk page is (he's been on a few), so I wasn't sure what the story was. Anyway, the move resolves that issue for now. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ncm, jaysweet - thanks - wow you were fast.. Should I have posted my issue directly up on WP:ANI? Was it not a Wikiquette issue? (20040302 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

The posting on the User page could arguably be a Wikiquette issue, although I'd say it was a mistake.
The removal of AfD tags is a technical issue that is explicitly prohibited by policy. Wikiquette alerts is more for handling civility issues and things like that, and we sometimes handle other things where there is a gray area and maybe we can work things out by just discussing with users.
For the removal of the AfD tags, it's not a civility issue, and it's entirely unambiguous -- removal of the tag while the discussion is still underway is not allowed, especially not by someone who has participated in the discussion. Probably you do not need to report it to ANI right away, but you should warn the user about it (as you did) and if he persists despite multiple warnings, you would then report it to ANI for administrator action. I hope this helps clear up the confusion! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.226.169.187

Resolved. for now. El_C is monitoring associated edit-warring too. Filing party also advised of WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-blanked the ip's page, per their wishes. Please stop adding templates to it. Moving and removing comments from both sides has been an issue here. Please be mindful of newcomers' sensitivities. El_C 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Anonymous IP editor making uncivil attacks and accusations in edit summaries [10], harassing editor who was attacked [11] and continuing to harass editor by reverting removal of attacks from user talk page.[12]--Vidkun (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the ip has decided to disengage and withdraw, at least for now. El_C 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's best if others do not continue to restore the comments the ip removed (now a 2nd time), and let the ip editor disengage. Thx. El_C 10:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vidkun, it seems the IP is relatively new to Wikipedia so we should try to assume good faith. I've given him/her the Welcome message and pointed out that getting familiarized with the relevant policies and guidelines might be a priority given the above. It should be resolved for now, but if it isn't, let us know. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith; however, I don't think getting familiarized with the relevant policies and guidelines might be a priority given the above is really the issue with this "new to wikipedia" editor, as they seem to have a familiarity with both policy (using the word POV in their second and third edits ever on wikipedia) and the ongoing problem of academic boosterism and peacock terms on the VMI page, as evidenced by the commentary of "watering down" which was used, in the past, by a number of editors who have made similar arguments (some of which had to be addressed to mediation). Good faith is hard to assume, when, in asking for citations for claims, editors get insulted, and pointed at references which make no claim that the editor tried to cite.--Vidkun (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. It is difficult to assume, but we should still try. :) It's never been a requirement or prerequisite for editors, regular or random anons to know or even have read policies and guidelines - although it's preferred if they have, for both their own sake and the encyclopedia's. Sometimes editors can go on for over a year not knowing one particular policy, yet being perfectly familiar with something (perhaps more complex) like NPOV, so there's no certain way of knowing what they know or don't know.
In any case, sockpuppetry is unfortunately a problem on Wikipedia and assuming good faith is often difficult when it's suspected. Why not try WP:SSP? If you have a genuine doubt or legitimate concern, then there'd be no problem with that (and would probably eliminate the need for coming here if successful). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Oni Ookami Alfador

Resolved. User has indicated he will try to improve. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User is aware of this report and says he will try to improve. Good enough. If there are further issues, feel free to contact me personally. El_C 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attacks against me occured a while back, but today I discovered his personal attacks have continued against at least one other editor. Here is a summary in chronological order:

12:03, June 1, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: called me a whiner

13:09, June 1, 2008 - my 1st request for him to stop personal attacks: here

13:04, June 3, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: called me a hypocrite

13:21, June 3, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador templated a regular: here

04:39, June 5, 2008 - my 2nd request for him to stop personal attacks: here

04:43, June 5, 2008 - my 3rd request for him to stop personal attacks: here

07:53, June 5, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: called me an irritant in his edit summary

08:34, June 5, 2008 - my 4th request for him to stop personal attacks: here

07:39, June 24, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: against another editor

If Oni Ookami Alfador could tone down his personal attacks in the future, I think we all would find it very helpful. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing severe, in that month-old exchange (disengagement ought have happened half way into it). You say there's something recent...? El_C 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Against me, yes, a month old. Against another editor, much more recent, escalating within the past two days. No downward trend in incivility, insofar as I can determine. I just happened to stumble upon his latest dispute with the other editor (who, as a newbie, did not respond as appropriately as a seasoned editor would), but there may be other recent examples. I didn't want to look up all of Oni Ookami Alfador's contributions because I didn't want to appear to be cyberstalking. However, if you'd like me to do that research, I'd be happy to. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's start with a link to what happened today. El_C 11:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume Arthur is referring to the exhange which started with this and ended with this. Characterising this as an example of incivility worthy of censure is somewhat typical, considering the way the discussion on talk:Dell went. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like everything was going fine with that exchange until Oni Ookami Alfador involved himself in it, for no apparent reason and seemingly out of the blue. Nothing too severe, but there is no need to go look for tense interactions, either. El_C 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some issues with civility here, but there are some things that are kinda insignificant - things often get heated so you need to develop a tolerance for it, or move past it, even if it's ignoring it or dismissing it as utter BS.

It's generally preferrable not to template the regulars, but keep in mind that it's the norm never to strictly enforce this particular guideline. Did you point him to the relevant guideline?

Editors aren't required to read through all policies and guidelines (although it'd be helpful if they did!), so you need to WP:AGF and give them the benefit of the doubt. Your repeated warnings against personal attacks seem to assume that he knows WP:NPA - did you (or anyone else) actually point him to the policy? Or has he explicitly shown his understanding of this policy elsewhere by citing WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL in another discussion? (Btw, thanks for providing diffs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. At Talk:Dell, he often wikilinked to various policy guidelines, which gave me the impression that he was well aware of all guidelines. But I don't think he ever did so with WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL specifically. I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that he was well aware of the guidelines against personal attacks. In retrospect, I should have linked them for his easy reference. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, no personal attacks and civility is a policy, but before commenting further, I'd like to give him a bit more time to make a response (if at all) to the concerns here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Accusations of bad faith

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThere is already a user RfC on this --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

As Jay correctly notes, there is no need to fragment the dispute resolution efforts when a user RfC already exists. Use it and its talk page (or beyond that, mediation, or arbitration) for followup issues. This board is for reports of a lighter nature; a user RfC is meant to be a more serious, intensive and extensive, step in the dispute resolution process, and you're already there. Thanks. El_C 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Accusations of bad faith have been made repeatedly against me and others by User:Greg_L (see this RfC). Recently he has likened me to a drunk loudmouth and to an elementary school girl picking on boys on the playground because I complained about his incivility. I have until now tolerated his behaviour (occasionally asking him to tone down his language) but am not prepared to do so any more. On 15 July I asked him to stop. He replied almost immediately with further accusations against me on his talk page and on a cabal mediation page. User:Fnagaton has also made similar accusations, most recently on Greg_L's talk page. Could someone ask both of them to stop? Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Greg L did not call Thunderbird2 a drunken lout -- he was making an analogy tying to explain why some his contribs could come across as uncivil if taken out of context. It was probably not the wisest analogy, but TB2's characterization of the diff is a little inaccurate.
On the face of it, it appears Greg L has made some remarks that were somewhat inappropriate, although I don't see anything egregious or blockable. However, this appears to be a complicated case involving years of contention over a relatively trivial MoS matter, and accusations of tedentious and WP:POINTYy editing. Also note that all of the diffs TB2 provides are people accusing him of taking quotes out of context to make a case about another editor being uncivil, heh, so that makes me reluctant to recommend any specific remedies without further context. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, that's an RFC/U, i.e. a user conduct RfC. Nevermind, this is already way beyond the scope of Wikiquette Alerts. This is a place where we try to talk problems out and people are warned. If you're already at the user conduct RfC level, you're way beyond WQA. Best of luck at the RfC! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) No, not directly, but I find it offensive nonetheless, and he repeats accusations of bad faith unrelentingly. I agree with you that this is an ongoing problem, but I don't know how to solve it. As you say, Omegatron tried ANI first, and then went to RfC. That is why I recently made a request for mediation, and he has now covered that page with similar statements. I don't know where else to turn. What further context would you like to see? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read a little bit more of the debate at MOSNUM and I am beginning to sympathize a little bit with your position. I don't think GregL is being egregiously uncivil, but there seems to be a lot of bullying going on over at WT:MOSNUM (on both sides, FWIW, but probably more so on GregL's side)
But like I say, if Mediation and RfC/U can't solve it, WQA can't either. Most people who respond here are not even admins... :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I still hope that mediation may help. It's early days there, as a mediator has not yet been assigned. Should I just wait patiently and tolerate the yelling until a mediator comes along? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could always try making a report at WP:ANI if you think that any of this is admin actionable, but to be frank I have not seen anything that is egregious enough to result in a block. For the comments on the Mediation page, yeah, I would just ignore it, for sure. Nobody who isn't already involved is going to read that, except maybe a mediator. So just pretend it's not there and don't read it.
One thing that may make you feel better is that a lot of the recent stuff Greg L has added on the Mediation page and on his talk page is so long that nobody is going to read it. (I've tried three times now to read the recent comment on his talk page, and every time my eyes glaze over and I click elsewhere before I get to the end of it. Seriously! I almost made it through this last time...) So you really can safely ignore it; you don't have to worry about people reading it and getting a bad impression of you.
If he (or anybody else) starts doing something really disruptive, like leaving messages on your talk page, or unilaterally editing policy or reverting changes, etc., then that would be actionable. Right now, all I see is a lot of hot air... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You mean like this, or this? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, first and foremost, both of those conversations are from like a month ago, and I was referring more to ongoing disruption. In addition, I'm not really convinced Greg was in the wrong in that case. Your edits in that case were in violation of WP:MOSNUM as it stood at that point, and I think there was a legitimate concern of edit warring.
The thing that concerns me most about the debate at WT:MOSNUM is the lack of consensus on whether there was any consensus ;D I am hoping a mediator can straighten that one out.
I don't see that Greg has left any messages on your talk page for weeks, and you don't have to read his comments on the Mediation page. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thunderbird2 has been repeatedly misrepresenting other editors and despite Thunderbird2 being asked to stop he continues to to repeat it (please ask if you need a list of the diffs), ergo he is doing so deliberately. Deliberate misrepresentation of other editors can be seen as disruptive behaviour. Can someone please ask Thunderbird2 to stop trying to misrepresent other editors? Someone might also want to ask him to stop abusing the Wikipedia process by lodging these spurious alerts. Fnagaton 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Cali567

Resolved. User advised by Jaysweet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove two people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the 'trying to kill the debate by removing two people who disagree with him/her'? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, did you read Dúnadan's Talk page. Cali567 was clearly trying to instigate an false accusation against me, and Cali567 wanted Dúnadan to be part of this instigation. Cali567 solution to the discussion I had with him/her was clearly getting me ban from Wikipedia through a false accusation of Sockpuppetry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just notice that you talked to Cali567, and the reply of Cali567 still shows his/her intent. Cali567 didn't mention me, who sent this Wikiquette alert, instead he/she mentions the other user who he/she accuses me of controlling. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If I may, in a situation like this admins will ask for DIFFs to make it easier for them to see what's going on. Just telling them to read someone's talk page or go through their entire contributions list isn't enough direction, even if you feel like it would be obvious. It helps to show uninvolved admins exact instances of the behavior you're referring to, that'll help them quickly. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now I see, I didn't know what DIFFs were. Okay then, here is the DIFF where Cali567 left his/her message to Dúnadan: [13], and here is the DIFF which Cali567 left in my talk page: [14]. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cali has been advised and has stated that he feels he crossed the line with some of his comments. I have advised Cali that he may want to consider an WP:RFC to resolve the content dispute.

Lehoiberri, do you feel this resolves your issue? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! Cali567's response to Dayewalker (here's the DIFF:[15]) his/her response does not mention me, just the person he/she accuses me of controlling, basically showing this user's intent. I didn't remove the study outright, like that other user did, I just removed Cali567's manipulation of the study (claiming Mestizo majority or large Mestizo population). This user has been quite rude to me, especially he/she doesn't mention me in the response. Cali567's comment in the response "Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible", so he/she does not regret trying to start a smear campaign to get me ban from wikipedia. Am I being a little overexaggerated, yes, but I not going to be harassed by a bully like Cali567. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So what would you like to see happen? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved?! So wikipedia allows bullying and smear campaigns, and let the user get away with it?! So sad! Lehoiberri (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Lehoiberri -- what would you like to see happen? I am trying to be helpful here, but other than saying that some his comments were over the line (though not so egregious IMO that it is blockable), I don't see much else that can be done.
In any case, if you want administrative action, this is not the place to ask for it. You can always try your luck at WP:ANI, but I can tell you right now that since Cali has admitted he probably crossed the line and has not resumed the behavior, it is unlikely that anything is going to be done.
Please answer my question what would you like to see happen? before you continue to criticize and complain. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there is nothing we can do, then why don't you make Cali567 give a real apology, not the half-ass apology it gave to Ncmvocalist (Note: It wasn't an apology since Cali567 negated it with the statement "Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible"). Cali567 had and still has no problems on starting a smear campaign against me. Let me remind you Cali567's "apology" DOESN'T EVEN MENTION ME! I already tried WP:ANI, but I never got a true response, only a response of a Admin look down on me and my complaint. I am angry because it looks like you (and other admins) seem to be siding with the smearer. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I am not an admin, let's clear that up right away.
Next, I definitely am not siding with Cali, and I agree that the sockpuppetry insinuations were out of line. If somebody really believes another account is a sockpuppet, they should either file a report at WP:SSP, or shut up. (I said as much here) However, I don't see any ongoing disruption by Cali, so I'm not inclined to ask for any action. If that means I'm "siding" with Cali, so be it, heh....
Lastly, on the subject of "why don't you make Cali567 give a real apology," heh, well, forced apologies seldom really count for much, don't you think? Even if you got a friendly admin to say, "Tell Lehoiberri you're sorry or else you will be blocked!", would the resulting apology really count for much?
If you merely want acknowledgment that Cali's insinuations were out of line, then you've got it: Cali's insinuations were way out of line. It seems other editors agree, and nobody's really defended what Cali said. It's just that nobody really feels it's that egregious either. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Jaysweet. But just to reinforce; if you think at WQA, or any other avenue of dispute resolution on Wikipedia that uninvolved users are going to force a party give the kinda apology you're looking for, you're mistaken. That's not the way we work here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

Resolved. It appears GHT has gone ahead with the split, and everyone who had objected has moved on. The original alert is a moot point. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Polaron keeps reverting my WP:BOLD edits in reconstructing a page for I-587. He keeps reverting the edits to embed I-587 within NY 28. That is a very narrow view to place an interstate on a state route page. That can be very confusing to those looking at interstate pages from the rest of the country. I know I'm from Wisconsin and am an Interstate geek. I want to know about I-587, not some rural state route. Most of the writers from this page have a narrow view here. Frankly, I believe the writers just put I-587 into NY 28 so that it would make feature level. That is wrong. We try our best on Wiki not to confuse the reader and a redirect to I-587 does that. I suggest Polaron and other writers get into this discussion instead of ignoring me and constantly reverting my edits. That is wrong!!! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing discussion at here. It is usually the case here at Wikipedia that the status quo be maintained until it is shown that a consensus has changed. This user is also possibly a sock puppet as the user is new and is suddenly aware of the dispute without having ever participated in the discussion. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm an interstate nerd and I've seen you revert several edits. The Interstate page should remain as the default until a discussion is finished. And Polaron has violated the three revert policy. See here. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is a formal discussion in progress, no involved party (i.e. neither of you) should be doing related reverts either way.
That said, there is some precedent when the discussion involves a potential merge to leave the page unmerged during the RfC, so that people can more easily see what the unmerged page looks like. Note that I am not proscribing this course of action, and I would caution both editors once again to refrain from further edit warring. But I am floating this possibility in case Polaron would be amenable to leaving the original article intact for now on those grounds. Thoughts? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarifyin that this not a potential merge but a potential split. The original state that has not in dispute for a long time is what I am restoring. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, I understand your point about defaulting to the status quo. There is no official policy on this, but in the case of content you are right that it is usually done that way. In the case of a merge or a split, it is sometimes useful to leave the page in question as a separate article, to help new participants in the discussion locate it.
There's no policy mandating that, either, it's just a suggestion. The one thing on which there is a policy is edit warring, so I trust both of you are done reverting until the discussion at WT:IH concludes. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Have both articles present for people to see. It is confusing right now and the little blurb within NY 28 doesn't even give I-587 justice. And status quo is not going by a previous discussion that was strictly in the New York Routes forum. Wikipedia is a public place, not confined to a couple roadgeeks from New York who want to have things their own way. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep

Resolved. See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Has listed multiple images of mine for deletion. He's only going after mine. It is just a grudge he appears to have because I listed some articles he likes for an AfD. You can find the images in question on SS's contib page. How are my images any different than the one found on the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship for example? They are clearly under used under fair use like that one. If someone can respond to this that would be great. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this revision of BB's talkpage. I've explained what needs to be fixed and it hasn't happened. Hosting these images is clearly in violation of copyright and they need to be fixed or removed as happens to every other image on Wikipedia that is NF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This complaint is not within the scope of WQA. Please try WP:EA or WP:3O. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • This isn't about the images per say. This is about Shep's proposal for my images to be deleted but not others of similar nature. That is a violation of wikiquette. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep has also violated the three revert policy of Wikipedia on those images. Look at the contribs. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not within the scope of WQA, and insisting otherwise will not make it otherwise. Please try the appropriate steps of WP:DR (for 3RR, WP:AN3 is the scope it would fall under). Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion pointed to this section. Third opinions requests should concern disputes where only two editors are involved. BurpTheBaby and StepShep are the two, but others have weighed in over the past few weeks, so WP:3O isn't really the best place to request assistance.

In any case, based on what I can read on various talk pages, it seems that BB needs to make sure that all uploaded non-free images are less than 300 pixels wide, and contain not only a copyright notice but a fair use rationale. The procedure for uploading images prompts you for this. Or you can look at the page source for a valid non-free image, such as Image:2008OpenLogo.gif, and use it as a template for your own image pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They've been deleted. User:Stepshep and User:David did not wait for discussion to be resolved, and did not give proper time for me to fill out long fair rationale paper work and did not give me proper time to re-size the images. It takes time! They clearly have precedent for existing! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Current images

Resolved. Despite some confusion about back-dating of tags, etc., everything worked out in the end and BtB is currently defending his fair use rationale in the proper venue --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep posted two more images of mine for deletion. I thus added the fair use rationale, but I think it should be brought to everyone's attention that tagged them today but marked them for July 9th. Therefore violating the 7 day policy. See the edit marked fix date and its the same here too. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the tag dates are wrong, and I consider it poor etiquette to provide misleading dates to artificially imply that more time has passed since the tag was placed. However, if this tag was put there by an automated tool or 'bot, it's possible that the wrong date is due to a software error. In any case, now you know what to do for future images to avoid getting them tagged at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do. They were clearly altered by Stepshep though. The tag wasn't put there by a bot, Stepshep noticed he missed two of my images and labeled them 7/9 on 7/16. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the modification of the date on the image tags was irregular and I have asked Stepshep to clarify. Let's not make a witch hunt out of this; even if Stepshep didn't have a good reason for it, you have fixed the fair use rationale and in the end no harm is done. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jay, and that is true, but if I could get the others that have already been deleted back, I'd fix those too. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16#Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg. Some support there would really help resolve this problem. I know exactly what I have to do with those images now and I can have them appropriately tagged in a 24 hour turn around. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I figured if BB was going to fix the images he would have atleast by now fixed the two he already uploaded (June 24). They were meant to be tagged with others from awhile ago; that information I did gather by bot. I altered the tags to try and keep everything together; in no way was I trying to fraud anybody. This will be my final comment on the matter. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly BB is new to the process. Your date change made it appear as if you were trying to accelerate the deletion process, or at the least indirectly violate WP:BITE. In the future, when you place a tag, date it correctly. Don't back-date it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much resolved. The back-dating of the no-fair-use tag was probably inappropriate, but since BtB caught it in time and was able to mount his fair use argument, it's a bit of "no harm, no foul" situation. Stepshep, if you are still reading this I'd just exhort you to probably not back-date tags anymore, even though I acknowledge your intentions were valid. If nothing else, it out of context it looks like an attempt to game the system, and I don't think there was enough of a benefit in keeping the debates dated the same to justify that appearance of impropriety.

In any case, everything has more or less worked itself out. I am marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Addresses 62.64.200.0 - 62.64.239.255

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere"Handled at an3 and at talk pages. El_C 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

someone on these IP Addresses (one same person) have vandalise my edits on 2000 in British music. As accepted by majority of registered wikipedians and according to the calender we use, the 3rd millinium had started in 2001, now on the article about british music in the year 2000 i changed an incorrect saying (that 2000 is the the 1st year not 2001) and have it set to focused about the music in 2000.
But the person on the IP Address didnt have none of it he reverted me alot of times (breaking the 3rr) and stating his POV (breaking wikipedia rules), i tried to talk to him and explain to him about why the millinium started in 2001 not 2000 and still he did not have any of it still reverted me again. I gave him some articles on wikipedia that he look at to see that i am correct and once if he had agreed wiv me i would of told him that he should leave the 2000 in british music article inroduction alone as my edit focuses on what the article is about. Instead he had edited it to his POV to which someone reverted him and called him an vandal (which is correct to say) he changed it back then i reverted that edit. He reverted me again quite a few times (again breaking the 3rr), i told him in the edit summary that he may need to be warned about the 3rr. After he read that he has then accused me of violating the 3RR and reported me to the admin noticeboard of the 3RR [16].
I do not know what to do with him as he is now accusing me of bulling, using POV, warning many (i only warned him and no one else) that they are violating 3rr, and doing tons of edit warring which if you look at my history is not true. Also he has stated that i "constantly reverts on a number of articles to protect a blatantly POV position" which can be said about him not me. i appreciate if anyone can help me out on this one thanks. Pro66 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look into this. For now, just leave this editor and the millennium issue alone. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Book of Mormon—Repeated deletion of relevant, cited facts without cause

Resolved. Wikiquette issues are resolved. Taivo's reversions were acceptable. Ongoing content issue discussions are at Talk:Book of Mormon. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Concerns about WP:OWN:

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks): link, link, link

Concerns about WP:PRESERVE:

  • Deletion of relevant well-cited facts from the article Book of Mormon without specifically addressing the content that they are deleting, or citing Wikipedia policy that would justify the deletions.
Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks):