Revision as of 06:30, 14 June 2011

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

Active alerts

User:Anthonyhcole

Slavery in modern Africa

• 46.7.72.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slavery in modern Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user is inserting a causal relationship between slavery (which predates Islam) and it continuation to the leadership of Sudan and their Islamic faith. WP:SYNTH Asked to discuss on talk page, failed to bring sources argument and still continued to revert and edit war and disrupt other ongoing edits. Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Eh, I don't see what this complaint is doing here. I see some content conflicts, but who's right and who's wrong is not relevant for this board. The plaintiff, Halaqah, says nothing about the IP having acted against etiquette, provides no differences of such behavior, and I myself see nothing in the IP's contributions that warrants some kind of note or intervention. The IP wasn't even properly notified of this complaint. In fact, I see some questionable behavior from the IP's counterparts, but that's not for here either. Someone please close this quickly; Halaqah, please stop forum shopping and try to resolve your differences via other means. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Good Man Goes to War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bit put out with Sarek's negative attitude towards my motives on this page, as shown by his giving me a template warning for edit warring on my talk page, and in the discussion I then began on his talk page (to which he has not exactly been forthcoming in explaining his actions). I don't wish to imply that Sarek has a personal vendetta against me, because I don't believe that to be the case, but feel I should point out that Sarek recently blocked me from Misplaced Pages for a day, a block that was subsequently overturned. U-Mos (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about your motives on that page. All I said was that you had reverted more times than you were supposed to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts: . That's four reverts in 24 hours, with one more revert shortly before that: . The warning you received was perfectly appropriate, and no wikiquette problems are apparent. SarekofVulcan made no comments about your motives, and giving you one (correct) warning a month after a too hasty block is hardly a "vendetta". Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no intention of suggesting Sarek holds a vendetta against me personally, but I do believe his over-zealous warnings etc. are highly unconstructive. I may have unintentionally slipped over 3RR on the page, but I was not involved in an edit war and so the warning (especially considering the edit that apparently triggered it) were totally inappropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No one claimed that you intentionally slipped over 3RR, but note that the revert or edit you give here is not even included in the four reverts I listed above, so is not really relevant in the end. The text on your user page is the standard 3RR warning: Template:Uw-3rr, not some specific text SarekofVulcan made up. If you believe that that template is not friendly enough and "highly unconstructive", perhaps it would be better if you discussed that at the talk page of that template. If you believe that Sarek had better used some more personal, less confrontational text than the one supplied by the template, you could have suggested this on his talk page. Taking this to Wikiquette alerts was not the best approach to this though. Fram (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As Sarek's talk page shows, I did attempt to discuss this but was met with little to no response, and Sarek did highlight the edit I linked to above (which is in no way a revert). I would have preferred Sarek to have not used the arbitrary template, but my main issue was that I believed it to be a template aimed at tackling edit warring rather than 3RR, wheras it appears to serves the purpose of both. I will therefore take your advise and raise my concerns on the template's talk page. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

After taking another look at that fourth diff(-"Sontaran"), it appears it would indeed be a stretch to call that a revert. However, that still leaves you with 3 reverts, and warning at that point is usually a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fram covered most of this in his above comments, although I will add a few points. U-Mos, I note that you said at the outset that you don't think Sarek has a vendetta against you; it does seem like you editing with the intention of improving the encylopedia, and you have clearly been here for long enough. But WQA was not going to accomplish much. Perhaps you can make a greater-still effort to abide by 3RR. Sarek, were you actively going against Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars? I don't see any indication from you that this was a mistake. Perhaps you can make a greater effort to avoid attracting this sort of attention by putting a bit more thought in what you are doing; this was quite small in the end, but the principle does seem to apply to the bigger issues you involve yourself in too. Seems like this is ripe to be marked as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither WP:DTR or WP:TR are policy. Gerardw (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR is an exception to DTR. Experienced editors who violate 3RR ought to be happy to be let off with a template warning. Looie496 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in to think I agree with this. As a bright line and pretty clear cut rule, using the template for this is not the same as using say a vandalism or NPA template. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That it isn't explicitly written into policy does not mean admins don't understand what happens in practice or haven't seen that happen for themselves before; if you know certain people are likely to react in a certain way to a particular type of form, yet you actively use that form on them anyway, that is an issue because it increases the chances of attracting this sort of attention. The editor who filed this was put off by the admin's apparent attitude and the templated warning; not the warning itself; an appropriate personalised nudge can produce very different results to what we have seen here, even for 3RR. Yes, 3RR is a bright line rule, but it is not completely devoid of meaning either; it shouldn't be used at the expense of or as an excuse to replace what's more important (the underlying purpose of the project). Each admin is given additional responsibilities which come with their privileges, elected to use his/her judgement appropriately, and should fully reflect on and abide by the spirit of policy too; it was because not enough regard was paid to this that the admin's recent block of this editor was overturned. Next, the admin used a template on that same regular editor (in spite of WP:DTR), then when that editor came to his talk page to resolve the concern, the admin's only response is to post 4 diffs without any further followup, and then after this WQA, the admin admits it was a stretch to call one of the diffs a revert. If all of these circumstances isn't an indication that more thought and care could have prevented this escalation, I'm not sure what is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True, discretion is needed and your comments are much more nuanced than mine! In this specific case I agree that the template should not have been used - context is as usual key here. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal relating to this issue has been made at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And my suggestion on the 3RR template can be found here. U-Mos (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about the validity of warning(s) from Adamrce

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

I got a warning from Adamrce for making edits, relating to a discussion on the talk page. I have tried to explain the situation of the discussion about what dispute or consensus there was or wasn't, and what policy guidelines that I felt have not been upheld when given me a new warning and reverting my edits here. I think that the warning and reverts have not had enough validity and would like to get this examined, because this has happened before. Davidelah (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also been involved in disputes with AdamRce, and am sick of him, leaving warnings on my page when he is in a dispute with me, like here. This maybe against[REDACTED] policy, per WP: Avoiding Civility , check out my user page, i have deleted about 4 or 5 warnings from him on my user page, but have kept some. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that a[REDACTED] Admin Intervention Notice was issued against this user (created by me), since i felt he was whitewashing controversial Islam related articles here (not many admins bothered replaying to that notice). Me and him also got banned for 24 hours for edit warring on the controversial Jihad article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Note: Note: I think I've explained enough on the claimer's talkpage, while I'll be happy to provide further details (if needed). --Adamrce ~ AdvertAdam 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am notifying all users who have been involved and i think have been victims of his fake warnings. I hope this does not constitute as canvassing. The users have edited the articles that AdamRce/AdvertAdam, has had disputes with. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find A's behaviour in this area irritating. Firstly, this warning is spurious and should not have been given (any experienced user will recognise it as spurious and ignore it. Inexperienced users may well be intimidated, which is bad). Second, his use of funny little symbols appears to be designed to give a spurious air of authority (it looks to me as though he is mimicking ANI-type "resolved" stuff). He should stop both practices William M. Connolley (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that the user is trying to get all sorts of rights e.g Reviewer rights, rollback rights e.t.c (you can see the symbols on top of his page), for the wrong reasons. I think he is trying to do this to get some kind of authority on wikipedia, so people recognise him as an experienced user, who can just revert peoples edits without question (and when he does revert, no one can really undo him, because he reverted for the right reason...because he is experienced you know :)). So arguing against him becomes harder. Personally, i believe the user is becoming arrogant (because of all those symbols he has on top of his user page), and is exaggerating himself against other users. Evidence of this is in his constant warnings against users he is in dispute with --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Imagine how a new user will feel when in a dispute with him. His warnings (which mention banning users), will make new users feel he is some "admin", so they will be less inclined to argue with him, fearing a ban (even if he is the one who did something wrong).There should be a BIG message on his page saying I am not an admin, even if i pretend to be one. I dont have any powers to ban you. And when i say big, i mean like the size of an Elephant. Since he uses to many warnings which mention banning users. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Slight comment: The second box of the "about me" sanbox says that I do not want to be an admin. Anyways, I never claimed to be one, nor does anyone have the right to tell me what to put on my userpage (don't visit it if you don't like it, as our communication is between talkpages). ~ AdvertAdam 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Any comments by Admins would be helpful?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be appreciated. Davidelah (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello DavidEloah. i think you should consider moving this to the admin notices or incidents section here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The process does seem to have gotten a little stuck here, but I would prefer if an admin, in this forum, would approve if this being done first, since I don't know whether there is someone looking into this case. Also I'm not sure how to do such a moving properly but I guess that's just a technicality. Davidelah (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Its just a cut and paste. i dont think admins realise that no admins have responded?

Don't escalate this to ANI. It will be rejected-no-action because no action is required, and it is stale. It looks to me as though A is going to just stonewall on this one (just like Al-A did earlier). That isn't good, but OTOH he hasn't repeated his heinous crimes, so maybe he has taken the concern on board without being prepared to admit it - that isn't uncommon William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

William. I really appreciate your opinions and experience, but please avoid accusations ("heinous crimes"). Everyone gave his side of the story, and that's what is required here. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

heinous crimes was a joke. It is far too over the top to be believable. I'm sorry if that didn't come over correctly. Consider it withdrawn. Everyone gave his side of the story, and that's what is required here - no, this isn't a story-telling game. What people are trying to tell you is that your behaviour is wrong. What is needed for this to be closed in a satisfactory manner, instead of just closed-stale, is for you to acknowledge the problem instead of stonewalling William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, i dont think he changed his ways. If anything, its temporary? if the admins wont help, what the hell can we do. Now 3 cases have been opened against him or related to him, and no admins will respond, as usual --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it's because Adamrce's signature and symbols looks like an admin's no admins have commented. Davidelah (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want help from an admin, this is probably not the place (ANI is the place) but given the issue is stale, there's little point as WMC has correctly told you already. Adam is very much incorrect if he believes a discussion should be put on hold due to a WQA being open. The very idea of WQA is for uninvolved users (not necessarily admins) to comment and provide perspective for disputes which lack resolution, but if users can resolve their disputes in the meantime (which means continuing any necessary discussion), that's even better. There is a danger in any party waiting for perspective here because the outcome may be something that one of the parties will not like (or both parties will not like), so it's better to try to resolve the disputes yourselves as a first point of call.

This has been here for far too long, so I'm going to suggest the following: Adamrce, can you please withdraw your most recent warning from Davidelah's talk page by striking it and take into account some of the things that have been said in this discussion? I'd rather see this happen voluntarily from you. Davidelah, I expect that by this warning being removed, you are willing to continue to discuss this with Adamrce and take into account the concerns he has with your editing (which was presumably what prompted the warnings in the first place). If there are continued issues of this sort in the future (eg; Adamrce gave Davidelah another warning or Davidelah has done/said something which makes Adamrce want to issue a warning), you can either take it to ANI for admin intervention or the next step in dispute resolution so that more uninvolved users can comment. Are the parties amenable to this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to take part in any discussion that can sorted out or reach some compromise. However, in the last exchange about Zakat I had with Adam, he gave the impression that there was no reason to discuss the material I had brought forth any further and directed me to take it up in the WP:CCN, again claiming that consensus was on his side. I have already tried to explain what problem I had with that claim. Davidelah (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@DavidElah, AdamRce is now in dispute with another user. see ...sigh (he used same arguments as with you) --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tjprochazka

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

User Tjprochazka is an editor who seems to be an SPA on the article for the How I Met Your Mother episode Slap Bet.

Quickly summing up the plotline on the show, one character (Barney) lost a bet, and another character (Marshall) gets to slap him five times, whenever he wants. The slaps have been an ongoing subplot of the show for years, and always a big deal (and clearly indicated by Marshall saying "that's one/two/etc") on the show. The show is told in flashback, and not in strict chronological order.

Since mid-May, this editor has inserted material indicating the fifth (and final) slap was given on an episode, where the editor fully admits no indication was given whatsoever that a slap delivered was the fifth slap. In the final diff given , the editor admits their addition is based on "visual perceptions," not any sourced material. They've been reverted by several other editors, but never used the talk page until I asked them today to please explain, where they basically responded with "it's in the episode." Relevant discussion is on the talk page here where I tried to make a point about speculation, which was ignored in favor of "the truth."

Where this rises above a slow-motion edit war is Tjprochazka's attitude towards my attempt to get him to discuss. His response was to insult me and ban me from his talk page. He then went to my page and called my good faith attempts to discuss "foolish" .

I have no desire to get into an edit war with someone who clearly believes their version is "the truth", and I doubt they'd be listening to me anyway. Would someone more patient than I please take a look at this situation? Thanks in advance for your time. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone must have missed the rules at the top of the page here: "Avoid filing a report if: You have not followed the directions at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith." - Tjprochazka (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried, and left a message on your page and on the talk page discussion. You responded by calling me "Lame" , a "drama queen" , "lazy" , insulted my intellegence , and told me to stay off your talk page (after one post) . I've made my case on the talk page, sorry, but I don't have the patience to deal with your behavior right now. As such, I've brought the matter here for further attention. Dayewalker (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This criticism has been addressed elsewhere, as per Wikiquette protocol, and may have been resolved on the respective User talk pages and the article Discussion page. (Links provided above). Tjprochazka (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It has not been resolved, although another editor has also reverted your changes at the article. This WQA isn't about a content dispute, it's about your behavior. If you'll use the talk page, stay civil, and seek consensus rather than edit warring, I'll gladly close this WQA. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, honestly, it isn't worth fighting with blind fools who won't face facts ... so I will stay satisfied with the fact that I am right and will wait, in the wings, until the night that the writers fess-up to their mistake or elaborate on their ploy and will then return to not only say "I told you so" but also that I was right all along. If you don't like my attitude that is your problem, not mine. I am who I am and I don't care what people think of me. You spammed my User page but I should thank you for that because you have given me a brilliant idea of how to use it going forward. I still maintain that talk pages are worthless (evidenced by the lack of "Discussion" for over three months on here 'and' the lack of the other editor's contribution to the same ... but I have now found a purpose for my own, individual talk page which shall henceforth be the equivalent of my blog. For THAT I should thank you ... but I'm not going to! If you find me/that annoying, oh well! I'll see you next season (and I can't wait until the other writers prove me right)! AMF! Tjprochazka (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You really are digging yourself a hole by making comments like that; I hope the warnings on your talk page will persuade you to end this feuding voluntarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

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

Orangemarlin has been uncivil and bitey toward the new editor User:Jjnullww.

1. Orangemarlin adds cleanup tags to the edit summary of "This article is nonsense"
2. Orangemarlin Uses a profane edit summary while fixing the cleanup tags nominates the article for deletion with a profane edit summary
3. Orangemarlin creates the AfD page and uses profanity both in the rationale and in the edit summary, with the new editor interprets as directed at him
4. Orangemarlin reverts User:Jjnullww's attempts to fix the article with the edit summary of "Deleting. This is not cited, and it's original research"
5. Orangemarlin reverts User:Jjnullww's attempts to fix the article using twinkle
6. I inform Orangemarlin that he has made 9 edits and two reverts, which could be interpreted as edit warring by applying Template:Uw-3rr
7. Orangemarlin reverts my edit and uses profanity and personal attacks in the edit summary
8. Orangemarlin leaves a message on my talk page telling me to read WP:DTTR, that I can't count, and that I should never warn someone about edit warring again
9. I reply explaining my reasoning and inform him that he was incivil and bitey toward a new editor
10. I leave a talkback template on his talk page
11. Orangemarlin reverts my edit and states "Don't give a shit...when I get an apology, maybe I'll give a shit."

I then filed this report. Thoughts on how this should be dealt with? Thank you, Alpha Quadrant 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, consecutive edits don't count as multiple reverts, so OrangeMarlin has 2 reverts at the most, which normally isn't considered edit warring. Also, this doesn't show profanity in the deletion nomination -- it shows him swearing at the multiple-issues template for not properly documenting how to use it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the swearing is inappropriate, but you're out of line here. He made 2 reverts. By definition that is not edit warring. For you to post on his page telling him he is edit-warring and out of line is simply inaccurate. I agree that he is brash in his comments, but which specific rule was he violating? As far as I can see the edits he was reverting were not sourced, which is the reason he gave for deleting it. You should withdraw this complaint.Ultimahero (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind OM that good editors don't need to be bullyish, it's enough to be good or smart or right. The rest is superflous and harms the community. It's also useful to encourage other editors to share their opinions, even if incorrect, and to show them better ways of doing things. Idealist, perhaps, but better than the current alternative, I think. Acting like the encyclopedia is constantly under attack by idiots is no way to live, nor is it a way to treat fellow editors. Ocaasi 05:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheese talk is tedious. We all understand your frustration, OM, but you can expose the flaws in the cheeser's thinking without making yourself look like a lout. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, after you finish rebuking Taoist, please remember that this kind of behavior is a constant problem (check the edit summary) with Orangemarlin, and it needs to be corrected. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin needs to learn that the proper course is to make a pretense of civility here, then fling insults from the safety of an external site. Or make accusations by innuendo, being careful to superficially distance oneself by claiming "I've been told by email..." or the like. Right, Cla68? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy, just like WP:NPOV. No one has permission to chuck one out the door to achieve the other. Misplaced Pages is a community-written encyclopedia. We would be wise to keep the community in mind while we write it. Improving the tension between believers and scientists is not just about keeping out the trash, it's about how we deal with people who share other views, fringe views, and sometimes unpopular or unwise but still encyclopedic views. As soon as WP:CIVIL is deprecated and replaced with WP:CIVILEXCEPTTOPEOPLEITHINKARENUTS, the culture of insult should cease. Smart people are smart enough to get their points across without ire or irritation. Ocaasi 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OM has a clear explanation of his behavioral expectations on his talkpage, which AQ ignored in posting there, drawing the predictable response. WP has broad tolerance for editors behavior on their own talkpages, and this certainly falls within that. AQ should simply apologize before aggravating the error further. The edit summary AQ describes as "profane" might be a tad salty, but had no mention of any hypothetical supernatural entity. Rather it expressed evident frustration with the state of template:multiple issues/doc. If anyone has reason to be upset by that it would be the editor(s) of that doc page, not the newbie. Meanwhile, the problem page Taoist medicineTaoist Medicine still doesn't belong in articlespace until properly sourced.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting that it is Taoist Medicine and is still in articlespace (with no sources). Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks Doug. Refactored. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant: you aren't being honest here (possibly not even with yourself). You say "I inform Orangemarlin that he has made 9 edits and two reverts, which could be interpreted as edit warring ", but that isn't true. What you actually did was left a std template on OM's page (thereby violating DNTTR, as OM noted and complained at you for). You made no mention of 9 edits and 2 reverts: you said: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war". You further said "If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice". That asserts (a) that OM *was* (not might be; *was*) edit warring; and that he risked a block for it (both of which were false).

So: you need to (a) correct your erroneous report, (b) apologise to OM for your violation of DNTRR William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that WP:DNTTR is an essay which advises against templating the regulars. So one can't "violate" it. It also advises that "Recipients should still assume good faith". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have corrected the report. Apologies for my mistake in point #2, I misread the diff. As for my use of Template:Uw-3rr, it can be used before the editor has violated the 3RR. He had made two direct reverts, as well as several consecutive removals. He had not yet directly violated the 3RR, but there was a potential for it to occur. Secondly, I did not, and cannot violate WP:DTTR because it is an essay. It is suggested templates are not used on experienced editors, but it is not policy. Lastly, the majority of this issue took place off of his talk page, the use of profanity in edit summaries to a new editor's article is bitey. Most, but not all, new editors know how to use the history tab and would be able to clearly see the summaries. Use of profanity may be acceptable on one's own talk page (or even other talk pages), but when editing a new article created by a new editor this is not acceptable. His deletion rationale did not specifically explain issues of the article, and if anything, was discouraging the new editor from creating another article. (And we have this problem) That is why I filed this report, I have no issues with his reaction toward me. Alpha Quadrant 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You should not have used the template. You still seem to be in denial about that. How about you show some kind of charity / good faith / whatever, and apologise to OM for your error? Secondly, the template (which you used, and therefore you take responsibility for the words) didn't say OM *might* have been edit warring, it said he *was* edit warring. So again, you are in error and owe an apology. If you're just going to stonewall this: why are you here? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not he should have used the template is a matter of opinion. It might be gracious of AQ to say to OM something like "I didn't intend or expect to upset you by using the template and I'm sorry if I did". But I wouldn't say that he needs to do so. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, accusing an editor of edit warring when they're not, and threatening to have them blocked them for it, could be seen as a violation of WP:NPA (see WP:NPA#WHATIS: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence). On the other hand, swearing, per se, could not be seen as such a violation. I suggest that AQ apologises for his handling of this situation, and in future adopts a more politely discursive and less aggressive approach to such situations. I also respectfully ask that OM please avoids using language that could be misconstrued/construed as offensive in the future, as it doesn't tend to help resolve matters. Best wishes, Spitfire 20:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the situation, I see that I was in error in using the 3rr template message. Instead, I should have hand written a message, I apologize for this mistake. Alpha Quadrant 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as OM is concerned, I think the community would prefer OM not to use crude language as in , or . Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Me too.Ultimahero (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you forgotten that wp:NOT#DEMOCRACY and wp:NOT#CENSORED, or do you just think that policies doesn't matter? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither, of course. We are not voting, "voting" or !voting on anything here, we're discussing a certain proposition. A consensus might or might not emerge. What are your views on the proposition that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, wp:NOT#CENSORED is "about Misplaced Pages's content". Misplaced Pages:Civility is a policy too, and one of the five pillars. It mandates that users should "avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users". The discussion is whether , and consitute offensive language. What are your views on that? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant Cribb: remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Can you please focus on mutual resolution not forciable punishment. It is not within the mandate of WQA to restrict an editor from using "crude language" (or from doing anything, for that matter); our role is to informally provide dispute resolution. To suggest that you have the backing of the community in imposing such a restriction just because of a discussion at WQA shows a appalling lack of understanding of what this venue is about. Kindest regards, Spitfire 07:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no mention of "punishment" in discussing the proposition that "most people would prefer OM not to use crude language". AQ asked about profanity and I gave what I believe to be the majority view, supported by Misplaced Pages:Civility, which is a policy and one of the five pillars. What is problematic about that? If I was wrong, then no doubt someone will show me a consensus where the language in , and has been considered and pronounced inoffensive. Saying that most people would prefer OM not to do something is so far from "imposing a restriction" (something I do not claim to do, and have no remit to do) or threatening a "punishment", as to suggest that the "appalling lack of understanding" which you see in my comments might perhaps be more on someone else's part. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You say above that the proposition is that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language (this in itself is a strange way to word a proposition), and that you're trying to form a consensus on that matter. In the event that a consensus was formed, then OM would effectively have been told by a consensus that he is to no longer use crude language. However, you are mistaken in thinking that WQA is the correct place to be making propositions and trying to form consensus about how users should be behaving. It is not. It is, as I have said, an informal venue for dispute resolution. The discussion you are trying to form has nothing to do with resolving the matter in a way that satisfies all parties, instead, it is focused on proving that a particular party behaved in a poor manner, and establishing a consensus that states that they should not continue that behaviour in future. That is not what WQA is about.

In this particular case, both the users most heavily involved have violated etiquette. However, we are not here to prove that, nor to sanction them for it. Alpha Quadrant has already apologised for his violation, as a result of informal mediation, rather than consensus and propositions (you should probably think about that). OM, on the other hand, does not seem to be interested in taking part in the mediation, which is perfectly understandable.

Kindest regards, Spitfire 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your views on dispute resolution are most interesting: thank you for expressing them. Your views on my behaviour and motivation are not helping to resolve this dispute. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cambalachero

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

here, Cambalachero call me "troll" and "harasser". When Cambalachero was expelled from Spanish Misplaced Pages, he lied about his puppets (he said he had never used their puppets to evade blocks, and I proved that this was a lie). For this reason, he hates me (anyway, I'm not the only user of Misplaced Pages in Spanish that he often insulting, but always he is careful to insult in Spanish language, either in Commons and in Misplaced Pages in English). He has transformed a license request for a "case of harassment". I request that Cambalachero delete these comments offensive to me. Ferbr1 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is spurious. With one exception, the only edits Ferbr1 (talk · contribs) has made this year are his complaints about Cambalachero. Clearly the only reason Ferbr1 is here is to harass Cambalachero. Whatever has happened on Spanish Misplaced Pages is irrelevant here. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is fallacious: I acted because I have been insulted. If I had not been insulted, I would not have acted. What should I do to not be "harasser? allow insult me without doing anything? Ferbr1 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say that Looie's reasoning appears entirely correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope this is closed before Ferbr1 pushes the point and gets themselves into trouble for making false accusations and hounding across territories. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont see anything insulting in the translations and frankly what happens on Spanish Misplaced Pages doesn't apply here.--v/r - TP 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Non-voluntary euthanasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Non-voluntary euthanasia (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Kevorkian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Voluntary euthanasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ClaudioSantos is already over a long period busy with pushing his point of view in al kind of article relating to euthanesia. He already amassed a few blocks for that (see: here). Most recent on 3 May 2011, for edit warring on Non-voluntary euthanasia. Unfortunately, immediately after his block he started again removing unwelcome texts, mostly by claiming it was original research. That came close to another edit war. But now he started shouting and roaring, and now I have enough!

Claiming that I am lying: , , , , , Changing text or lay out of text: Copying text to another place without notifying: , , Hiding warnings for edit warring and POV-pushing: Removing unwanted references:

Maybe I am at the wrong place here with my complaint, but this looked the best place. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it a fault to change the layout in order to facilitate the reading of the paragraphs? Is it a fault to copy a discussion from the user talk-page to the respective article-talk-page? Whathever. The relevant issue is that my deletion of some sentences in some articles was not any personal attack nor and edit warring. The paragraph that Night of the Big Wind was continuosly reinserting in non-voluntary euthanasia was WP:OR: the source does not say what this paragraph claims. That source (here is the abstract: )is an study about Deliberate termination of life in newborns in The Netherlands; an review of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004, but it never claims that "In the modern world, the term (non-voluntary euthanasia) is usually applied to medical situations, such as the termination of newborns born with severe spina bifida (child euthanasia), performed in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol". The source does not even use the term non-voluntary euthanasia not even the term Groningen Protocol.

Nevertheless, Night of the Big Wind insisted the source claims that statement when I proved it does not, and of course he failed to provide a quote of it from the source when I asked for it but he insisted to include the misleading paragraph. So it was WP:OR and blatantly misleading by falsely attributing to a source something it does not claim: that is lying. And I also remember that statement was firstly inserted into the lead by an user who was expulsed due sock-puppetry and well known and well expulsed because of using dirty tactics in order to force his editions, also known by Night of the Big Wind as he was also his victim:-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same in the case of this reference I've deleted: . The source Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, which is an article from the own en-wikipedia, it does not state that "Also in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-active euthanasia". That is a sort of claim made by the WP-user, falsely atributed to the source. In fact the conlsuioon made by the Suprem Court were quiet different see: -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Therefore I am not deleting "unwanted" references nor forcing any POV, but just removing WP:OR-statements which are misleading by falsely attributing to the sources things that those sources actually do not claim. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations, my friend. You removed two sources, of which at least was inconvenient. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears much of the dispute comes down to this article, the title of which was "Actieve levensbeëindiging bij pasgeborenen in Nederland; analyse van alle 22 meldingen uit 1997/'04" , PMID 15702738. The authors, Verhagen AA, Sol JJ, Brouwer OF, Sauer PJ were from the University of Groningen, and two months later two of them published "The Groningen protocol--euthanasia in severely ill newborns." PMID 15758003 in N. Engl. J. Med., detailing the protocol. While I wouldn't trust my ability to translate the Dutch text, it clearly is discussing the same topic, whether or not it literally applies the same term.

This is a very delicate topic, editors should endeavour to use the greatest tact possible in discussing it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And there are many misconceptions and much misinformation. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To show his POV: . Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

At this edit by CS, which was then reverted by NotBW we see both editing in evident bad faith. The first assumes wp:OR and deletes, where there was only justification for a {{cn}} (and that citation could have been provided, albeit with a change of wording from "non-active euthanasia" to "voluntary withdrawal of life support". The court's words were that "A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment.") The second edit labels the first edit as vandalism, when it was clearly a content dispute. Frankly both these editors need to give their heads a shake. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe. It is indeed possible that after all the previous issues, I am overly itchy for Claudio's edits... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

TheLongTone

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

TheLongTone seems to be adamant to continue a dispute with me. An IP (he himself), added content to the article Bristol Bagshot, and I must agree the content was added in good faith. But as the content was added without any references, I reverted the edits and warned the user using Huggle. But after I reverted the edits, he clarified that the edits were added with a reference to the external links present in the article. I later told him that "You never leaved an edit summary saying added content with abc in bibliography as ref. Considering that you had, all this fuss would never have happened. Because if you check the revisions, no refs or no edit summary specifying that content was added from ext. link was present. Do learn to leave an edit summary." (diff). But after I replied to him he answeres back to me, and (according to this diff), he calls me (in his own words) " wrong,rude,pedantic,Illiterate (Leaved?),a Stalinist,Ignorant,The cause of any fuss ". Further he states (diff) that he is "surprised your page has only been vandalised twice if this is how you generally behave". After le I told him to withdraw (strike out) his last comment diff, he asks "which item on the list offends you?" and "advise you to watch 'to Have and Have Not' especially the scene in which Bogart meets the character played by Lauren Bacall. It's fabulous." (diff). I believe that anyone would find himself offended after such name-calling. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be three points here, that I did an edit without leaving a note, that my edits were unreferenced, and that I am being offensive to the user who made the complaint. The edit in question is clearly (if typo'd)statement of what was done & clearly stated that everything I had done was in a standard reference work on the subject of the article. This may have popped up briefly as anonymous because I am prone to browser crashes which log me off. In any case I was back in the article polishing things (such as editing references)when this precipitate undo was perpetrated upon me. I left a polite notice pointing all the above out, only to meet a stream of denial. the. .Storm in a teacup.TheLongTone (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seem to be 3 issues: You did not do an edit without leaving a note specifying that the edits you made were from an external link that too from an IP, that your edits were unreferenced, that you are being offensive to the user who made the complaint, And also you failed to compromise. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was referencing a book. For some reason totally unknownn to me you waded in and when politely challenged refused to discuss anything, merely reiterating inaccurate claims.Now you have thoroughly lost your temper over this entirely trivial matter. I can make neither head nor tail of your previous post.I have loads and loads of adjectives I could use should i wish to insult you. This was not my intentionTheLongTone (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ALERT: Completely uninvolved editor chiming in. I have recently had an "encounter" with TheLongTone, and have found him polite, patient and well-intentioned, as well as having a solid background in research and academic writing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Uninvolved editor here: I'm not sure what you want done, GaneshBhakt. Yes, TheLongTone did insult you intentionally. But his actions haven't exactly been ban-worthy. As there isn't much that can be done, I'd suggest just moving on. This is such a minor disagreement that was handled poorly on TheLongTone's part, agreed, but hardly worth going further than just ignoring him. TheLongTime, try to use edit summaries more and I'd suggest your refamilarize yourself with WP:CIVIL if you haven't already.--v/r - TP 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to conduct a dialogue with this person but all he would do was to rant on about edit summaries and references. I left an edit summary. It was about references. Sometimes sorting references properly takes more than one edit session. I have said all this before. Complainant did not take any noticable heed of my answers. I do not consider myself at fault.TheLongTone (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, starting a dialog with "if you had bothered to read" ] isn't likely result in the most cordial interchange. Gerardw (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002 and Identity, Four-dimensionalism

There is at the core a content dispute here, I realize this isn't the forum for that. But there is a discussion brewing at Talk:Identity that is borderline incivil. User:Stho002 added a long, (imo) rambling section to the lede of the article; I removed it citing MOS/LEDE. Another editor, User:Philogo has engaged Stho002. I admit I could have been a little clearer in voicing my criticism, and maybe I'm guilty of biting a newcomer (Though since October 2010 one would hope. . .) and perhaps failing to assume good faith, but I feel that Stho002's response has been out of proportion, and unnecessarily sarcastic and combatitive. Prior to my change at Identity I tagged a similar section in the Four-dimensionalism article as essay-like, but stopped short of removing it. Perhaps he could be gently reminded by an uninvolved editor that WP works by consensus and that discussions must remain civil. Thanks in advance for your attention to this issue.

Diffs

• The text that I removed.
• Stho002's response adding a note in the article text.
• the span of diffs showing the Talk page discussion to date., in particular see ,
• Stho002 notified of this report.

BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

this is a trifle OTT, as I wasn't trying to be uncivil (though I may have come across that way, I don't know). It was just very' frustrating to be told that a lede should 'establish the significance , include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more', when they reverted my lede, which did all these things, back to one that did none of these things! It seems that some editors have difficulty in recognising a good lede when they read one. We have a problem here if WP policy can be used to justify a reversion from something that is in line with that policy, to one that is not. That makes me suspect that editors are just using policy to wield some kind of spurious authority, for the sake of it, and the quality of WP articles is the victim. Sort yourselves out, please ... Stho002 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution