Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:13, 19 January 2007 editLpgeffen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,235 edits →19-January-2007 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020 edit undoJPxG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators118,942 edits diff links more clear
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description\|Historical document}}
	{{shortcut\|WP:WQA}}
			{{historical}}
	]
	]

			'''Wikiquette assistance''' was an informal process, ], available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally ].
	'''Wikiquette alerts''' are a streamlined way to get an outside view about possible problems with ].

			If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see ].

			For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see ].
	'''<u>Are you in the right place?</u>'''
	* To report obvious ''']''' please use ].
	* Violations of the ''']''' should be reported at ].
	* If you feel an article needs ''']''' against rampant vandalism, please use ].
	* If you believe that one or more editors are ''']''', please use ].
	*For ''all other'' incidents that may require ''administrator intervention'', please use ].

			{\| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;"

			\| width="300" style="text-align:center;"\| '''Search the ]'''
	'''<u>Procedure for this page</u>'''
			\|-

			\|<inputbox>
	At the bottom of the list, just post:
			type=fulltext
	*A '''single''' link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page).
			prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance
	*Label the comment '''neutrally''' but do not sign and '''do not use names''' (type <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, which gives only a timestamp).
			break=no
	*Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to ''you''!
			width=40

			searchbuttonlabel=Search
	If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, you may post an item here about that, as well.
			</inputbox>

			\|}
	Editors who follow the link provided in an alert are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette breaches they see.


	'''<u>Archiving</u>'''

	Items posted to this page should be removed after seven days.


	==Archived alerts==
	*]: June 2005 - September 2005
	*]: October 2005 - December 2005
	*]: January 2006 - February 2006
	*]: March 2006 - April 2006
	*]: May 2006 - July 2006
	*]: August 2006 - September 2006
	* ]: October 2006
	* ]: November 2006
	* ]: December 2006
	* ]: January 2007

	==Active alerts==

	=== 10-January-2007 ===
	*Pretty much your standard edit war, ] sums it up: about whether or not subject can be called rabbi as per every r s on the guy, or if unsourced opinions about him should determine content. certain amount of prevarication on the part of some participants, refusal to discuss reversions etc. thnx in advance. <span style="background-color: #000000"> <font color="white">'''⇒'''</font> <font color="white">]</font> </span> 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
	**Boy, that talk page is a rat's nest. No one apparently believes in intenting, and much else in ] seems also to be ignored. As best as I can tell, there are three main discussions going on (rabbi or not; scandalous sex; and some fine point of Jewish law ); it might help if the talk page were refactored accordingly. And, of course, accusations of improper behavior everywhere.
	**I posted a warning at ] regarding one egregious posting, but that isn't likely to make much difference. You've mentioned (on the talk page) taking this to arbitration, and I think that's probably the right answer - you really need someone who's willing to dedicate a few hours to getting to an agreement on language like ''Weiss is addressed as and uses the title "Rabbi", but the source of his ] is unknown.'' -- ] \| ] 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
	**The scanadalous sex rumors concerning Mr. Weiss were posted once. No one put it back on until they find an appropriate source (I would add that these rumors are as widespread as those concerning Liberace's sexuality during his lifetime--just to give you illustration of the restraint honest editors are exhibiting in their faithful adherence to Misplaced Pages guidelines). The problem is that the other side insisting that Rabbi Weiss is a Rabbi and that he was not condemned by Neturei Karta (therefore making it impossible for him to be an adherent of Neturei Karta proper) and it is exceedingly inappropriate for them to remove the helpful fact-based edits because of their political and possibly racist agenda. I believe it also very likely that these "editors" are the same four of five followers of Mr. Weiss. Whatever the case is, this should be addressed and Weiss (or his editors) ought to be appropriately sanctioned. ] 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	*{{user\|MidiUser}} has restored some copyrighted material that was removed from ], as well as reverted and spread a list of companies across various articles. It looks like MidiUser may have been restoring his own edits as {{user\|24.46.106.121}}. Advise and comments are appreciated. 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	**24.46.106.121 claims to be a part owner of the company. --] 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	**{{user\|70.19.3.194}} claims to be the same part owner. --] 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	***This doesn't rise to the level of needing administrator intervention. In fact, I'm a bit concerned about ], although I agree that the three accounts appear to bave been using Misplaced Pages as an advertising forum. While there is certainly a problem with copyrighted info on the main article in question, I think the real question is whether it meets notability standards per ]. If not, there shouldn't be an article at all, and no cross-posting in other articles.
	***I think you've got two options. You can leave the copyright notice up, which will probably result in the article being deleted on that grounds, and deal with a least one unhappy user. Or you can take the notice off, and AfD it. Given that there are all of 9 google results for the company name, including two from Misplaced Pages, the likely results of the second approach are pretty clear. But that might make the user(s) feel a little better, since they'll get their day in court, unlike the copyright evaluation process, which seem like a black box to me, at least. Your choice. ] \| ] 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	****Thanks for the advice. I'm going to remove the tag, document what's going on, and wait awhile to give the editor(s) involved a chance to weigh in before considering an AfD. --] 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 11-January-2007 ===
	*This user has a long history of personal attacks against me (see his ] and his ]), and now writes . ] 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	**The edit you pointed me to says (where the user most violates ]): ''He is not the polite person he simulates to be. He is a fanatic of conspirationist theories as he has proofed doing what he has done.'' I'm going to post a note about that on the user's talk page. Some advice to you: (1) there are ''major'' personal attacks that are unacceptable (see ] for the list) and then there are ''minor'' personal attacks. This is clearly a ''minor'' one. The right way to deal with such minor matters is to ''ignore them''. (2) The best way to spend your (limited) time is to focus on improving the content of Misplaced Pages articles. If you spend time arguing with other editors about what they think of you, or say about you, then neither you nor the other editors are doing anything to improve articles. (3) The last posting on the user's talk page was November 27th, so the personal arguments seemed to have stopped. I'm going to post what I hope is a very polite note to the user, because I don't want to contribute to this personal argument starting again. ] \| ] 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	***Thank you for your intervention, John Broughton. My fear is that, ignoring offensive remarks, I would allow the other user to smear my reputation. Well, the "user contributions" tool is there to show who I am, but... ] 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	****Good editors will pay attention to what the content changes you are suggesting, and won't pay attention to attacks - in fact, many editors, including me, tend to think less of the comments of someone who makes personal attacks, because such people don't seem committed to Misplaced Pages values.
	****Also - do keep in mind that there are 1.5+ million Misplaced Pages articles. When you make an edit to an article you've never edited before, you're probably an unknown. And what editor has time to check the contributions and user pages of ''every'' other editor? The probability is overwhelming that you're going to be judged on what you say (your edit), not who you are Only if you get into a fight will someone (more) likely look at your past (to see if you seem to be a reasonable person or not, and therefore how seriously to take your opinion). ] \| ] 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

	*An edit-war appears to be starting on ] over the tags on the article. 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

	* ]'s been warned numerously to be civil, but continues uncivility, accuses other editors (1 which is new) of being members of the organisation which is being disputed, (which is not an argument for or against the disputer). He regularily accuses others of vandalism, despite being told to look up the definition of a wiki vandal. He keeps 'throwing the rule book' at others but hardly ever gets it right, and violates it himself. He threatens to block, or ban people that disagree with him, although he is not an admin, and continues to edit war. Of serious concern is his insistance on keeping a libelous article about a British Lawyer ] (see decent version: ), quoting references that contradict what he claims, giving them a pretense of legitimacy see:
	:: - ''']''', - ], - ], - ] 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

	*Reference is made to the following ] and the comments made: "They are free to expound on their fantasies in the creationism articles." It is generally felt that no alternative points of view can be submitted to the page and a suggestion for mediation was rebuffed by the same user. It was pointed out that 46 percent of Americans have a similar opinion, making it a substantial showing worthy of mention in the article, but this has not resulted in a change in the user's stance. A prominent authority has been found critical of the proposed views on the current article page, which should permit inclusion into the topic under the NPOV guidelines. It is possible that the user has violated the 3-revert rule as well. Please advise.17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	**In my opinion, the introduction of creationist arguments into a page about radiocarbon dating is in fact a fantasy, and comes close to being covered by ]. The only purpose of such an argument is to claim that radiocarbon dating is totally unreliable, something that would come as a shock to the thousands of scientists who have used it, relied on it, and found it to be extremely useful. As for the 46 percent who "have a similar opinion" (this presumably is rejection of evolution), a large percentage of Americans at one time (for all I know, still do) believed in UFOs, despite the absolute lack of any reliable evidence. Public opinion polls should be cited only when the content of an article is about what the public thinks. If "fantasy" is the worst comment that a creationist encounters here at Misplaced Pages, he/she should consider him/herself to be fortunate.
	**Regarding ], you can ititiate a mediation proposal without the agreement of other editors, if you want.
	**As far as 3RR violations go, the information at the top of this page has a link to the place to file a 3RR complaint. Generally, however, stale complaints (where the most recent revert is at least a day old) are rejected. And, quite frankly, there is a good chance that the reviewing admin would consider attempts by an editor to insert creationist arguments into an article on radiocarbon dating as nonsense/vandalism, and reject the 3RR complaint on that grounds. But you're free to file a complaint if you want. ] \| ] 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 12-January-2007 ===
	*Editors expressing hostility and abhorrence towards another user at . Possible intent to be disruptive. 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I've posted a note on the user's page about wising up and stopping the kind of petty things he has done. If this continues, please consider dropping me a note on my talk page, rather than here, with another diff. ] \| ] 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

	*I have removed multiple and extended personal attacks against me from and left a template stating:
	*:{{NPA}}. The personal attacks were restored as if they were so-called "vandalism." They are not ]. The removal of such personal attacks against me is a legitimate deletion of material that violates the stated template's guidelines and rules against personal attacks "anywhere in Misplaced Pages." --NYScholar 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I am happy to see that those personal attacks have now been removed via an administrator's aid. --NYScholar 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

	*I would like an outside view of the discussion ]. ] implies that non-Burmese speakers should not have a right in deciding the names to be used in English, while I contend that everybody's opinion should have equal weight and users should not be exclusive. This user has a history of making accusatory remarks (], ], ], ]). — 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

	* A user who is indifferent to Misplaced Pages policies of ], ], ] and ] repeatedly adds an unsubstantiated line and repeatedly removes <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. About twenty ] obtained and available in a list if needed. It began at what is now article talk page section ] (one post); the rest is in PSK January 2007 section immediately following it. — 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I've posted a note at the user's talk page regarding these policies and ] (this is a textbook example) and ]. So far, this seems a minor, albeit very irritating point of contention; I'm hoping that a note will suffice. If it does not, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what else I can do. ] \| ] 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

	*A number of snide remarks and nasty accusations ]. 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I've posted a note on the editor's page re ] and ]. ] \| ] 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

	*Repeating material posted yesterday, due to the reverting of the personal attacks: An administrator already agreed that they were personal attacks and that they needed to be removed; they were removed "as per CSTAR" (the admin.), but then today someone else has restored them. Please removed these personal attacks as per {{NPA}}.
	<<*I have removed multiple and extended personal attacks against me from and left a template stating:
	*:{{NPA}}. The personal attacks were restored as if they were so-called "vandalism." They are not ]. The removal of such personal attacks against me is a legitimate deletion of material that violates the stated template's guidelines and rules against personal attacks "anywhere in Misplaced Pages." --NYScholar 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I am happy to see that those personal attacks have now been removed via an administrator's aid. --NYScholar 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	>>
	*: I am not happy to see that those personal attacks have now been restored by another user or sockpuppet named "Yandman" at . Moreover, my earlier attempt (which was reverted several times by Morton_devonshire) who then reported me for my reversion of the personal attacks (blanking them out, ultimately blanking out the user name), eventually led to me (the complaining party) being blocked (for a few minutes, which accidentally led to over an hour, due to the block not being removed when the administrator requested it be removed.
	**Due to the problems relating to blocking, I am not posting (or editing out the personal attacks) any further on ], as he and others clearly were conspiring (irony of ironies, given messages on his page) to draw me into an argument so as to get me "banned" from Misplaced Pages (!). I suggest that these users need to be warned against such behavior in Misplaced Pages and perhaps that they need to be blocked and/or banned for apparently engaging in it.
	**Just blanking the references to a user's name (or users' names) in the personal attacks does no good now, as the personal attacks remain and due to my complaint and posting of this ] notice referring to them, it is clear who they pertain to.
	**Nevertheless, such behavior needs to be addressed and the offenders need to be warned and/or blocked and/or banned from continuing in such behavior. Users' talk pages in Misplaced Pages are not for making personal attacks on other Misplaced Pages users. That is against ], which says that personal attacks should not appear anywhere in Misplaced Pages, which includes users' talk pages. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	:: I do note that references to a specific user seem to have been deleted; that is only marginally better than a "named" personal attack; it is still tantamount to taunting. I will leave a message on that user's page.--] 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::The user in question M-d claims now on his talk page not to have composed that material himself (untrue; he signed it originally), and yet it is currently now moved to his archive (page 7). That is pure deception and does not solve the problem of the (now-archived for all posterity) personal attacks. Once again, I refer to ] and add the template (as I have done before): {{NPA}}. This is still outrageous. I repeat: such behavior needs warnings and/or blocking and/or banning. For the record, I have not been "blanking" that page (since my initial attempts on Jan. 11 to remove the personal attacks).--NYScholar 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::I repeat myself: "Just blanking the references to a user's name (or users' names) in the personal attacks does no good now, as the personal attacks remain and due to my complaint and posting of this Misplaced Pages:Etiquette notice referring to them, it is clear who they pertain to." The fact is all that material still resides in Misplaced Pages, now in the user's archived page (all the same as before) and in "history"; I request that an administrator ''delete'' the material completely from Misplaced Pages (from the archived page and ''also'' from the history of changes). It amounts to slander. Thank you. --NYScholar 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::I removed the material from the talk page archive. That is clearly in keeping with CSTAR's warning to the user; it should also be removed from all the talk page histories by an administrator (CSTAR or someone else). Thank you.--NYScholar 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 13-January-2007 ===
	*Personal attack at ]. See . 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC) ...and, continued in 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I have posted a note to the user asking that he/she stop making such comments on article talk pages. ] \| ] 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 14-January-2007 ===
	*Personal attacks at ] and ]. Possible attempts to disrupt.14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I have posted a note on an editor's take page about compliance with Misplaced Pages rules. The editor is new and I hope is simply unaware of Misplaced Pages rules. If the problem persists, please post here again or drop me a note at my talk page. ] \| ] 16:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	***Further problems. Continued personal attack on He posted on the ] after notification of violations. Also on ] threatening disruption by placing AfD on other article.19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	****I've posted another notice, and am having a civil discussion with the editor. With regards to the AfD, the language on the page reads (now) ''By the way, I will soon start an Afd in Bride burning article''. That's a statement, not a threat. If you have a ''documented'' reason to believe that this AfD would be in retaliation, please let the editor know about ] by posting something on the user talk page (politely, please). Otherwise, please observe ], at least in form. Thanks. ''] '' \| ] 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 15-January-2007 ===
	What to do with such edit summaries, like this: . Some guys (Juro, Tankred, PANONIAN) tend, and love to call me vandal/sockpuppet of somebody. I reported it many times on the since dismissed WP:PAIN, but I met only incomprehension, and/or frigidity, no matter that the use of the word vandal/sockpuppet/troll/etc is strongly restricted, and - at lead by the guidelines - without proiding evidences, can be considered as personal attacks. I just did that. My warnings were removed under the same summary. Common thing happening to me day-by-day. --] 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	:] has used sock puppets in a disruptive way and has been blocked for it after my suspicion was confirmed by CheckUser. See ]. As to the supposedly removed warnings, VinceB put them on my talk page in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and he was blocked for it again (see ]). Both blocks were applied by previously non-involved administrators. ] 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry are not considered by most admins, in and of themselves, to violate ]; saying so in edit summaries is not disruptive per se. Responding to such "accusations" by posting warnings on user pages ''is'' disruptive. ''] '' \| ] 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	*Following edit summary on ] 08:56, 15 January 2007 88.113.137.249 (Talk) (reliable; whose opinion? in any case, as long as the group is not named or referenced in any manner, your site means diddly squat. stop being a stubborn moron (even though youre a self-hating white)). This appears uncivil. 10:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I've noted a 3RR violation and repeated violations of ] by one editor, who also has a history of vandalism, and will make sure that action is taken on these. ''] '' \| ] 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 16-January-2007 ===
	* It´s not the first time: See also ] and ]. could also be relevant ] 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
	**For non-Spanish speakers, in the link provided in my comment that has been reported by Randroide, he coordinates with Gimferrer (who was blocked forever in Spanish wikipedia) to make the article about the Madrid bombings of 11 March 2004 say what they want it to say and they prepare an edit war thas is happening now after the rest of users have exhausted patience.--] 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
	***I've already had discussions with Igor21 and one of his supporters. I understand that there is a long-running dispute here. I'd encourage (a) some thicker skin here - if I were to fight over edits for months at a time, I wouldn't be surprised if someone called me a "fanatic", and (b) following ].
	****Just a little remark for the records. Southofwhatford is not a supporter of me. Southofwatford was an editor who started time ago a process of discussion with Randroide to agree on the text. Because agreement was imposible in spite of the fact that more than one page of talk was filled each week for many months, they started the elaboration of a RFM. Randroide boycotted it when was ready to be presented. Then southofwatford started to elaborate an RFA, He said that he needs some time and I suggested to let pass by Christmas time to everybody calm down. Using this period of rest, Randroide completely changed the article while southofwatford warned three times to not do so. Then I restored the original statement in the introduction and you know the rest of the story. I want to apologize to southofwatford since 1)he has always followed the rules to the letter and because I suggest the waiting Randroide destroyed unilaterally the original article 2)my dificulty to remain impasible in presence of Randroide maneouvers has caused southofwatford to appear in this page without having done anything wrong.--] 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	***I'm not personally going to intervene further here unless I see significantly worse behavior than was just pointed out; other editors are welcome to involve themselves if they and to. Randroide - if you really think much is going to come out of repeatedly asking for chastisement of another editor - as opposed to you trying to work constructively with others - you're dreaming. ''] '' \| ] 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
	****] 10:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) John Broughton mentioned ''"Thicker skin"''. LOL!!! XD. Thank you very much for the naked downeartherness in your suggestions. I just bought a set of ], so there will be no furhter ''"asking for chastisement"''.
	****You just established what is the "acceptable" (ahem) level of personal attack in the page, so I will accept that level (always in the "receiving" end) as a minor nuisance. Offensive remarks about me in "the real world" affect me nothing, the problem is that Misplaced Pages is a private venue, and I thought there were some standards of civilty here, and that one is supposed to be the "Neighborhood watch" to guard those standards. It seems that´s not the case. Cheers.
	****'''AFAIAC, this case is closed.''' ] 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	*****Fine. If you want a better understanding of why policing civility is so difficult (and limited), you might look at the (now defunct) ] process. And may I suggest that you stop putting your signature at the ''beginning'' of your remarks? ''] '' \| ] 15:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== 17-January-2007 ===
	*Could someone look at ] in regard to it's appropriateness? 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	**The article was (as mentioned on its talk page) created based on an earlier, similar article, ]. As it happens, ''that'' article was nominated earlier today (for the second time) for deletion. You might look at ] to see the arguments being made and help you decide if you want to submit ] to the AfD process as well. ''] '' \| ] 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	=== 19-January-2007 ===
	*There is a widening pattern of personal attacks by ]. See at ]. 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	*] has left unwanted messages on the user talk page ].
	Some of these message advertise vandalism elsewhere. ] 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	Other examples of vandalism by this user can easily be found in the edit hitory.

Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020

Historical document

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikiquette assistance was an informal process, set up in March 2005, available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was discussion among the community about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally marked inactive in September 2012.

If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see WP:PAIN.

Search the Wikiquette archives

Category:

Inactive project pages