| Revision as of 01:43, 10 July 2012 editGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,287 edits Uncivil behavior: This is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog.← 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| {{short description|Historical document}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance/Header}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{historical}} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 120 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance/archive%(counter)d | |||
| }}]]{{noindex}} | |||
| '''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 ]. | |||
| = Active discussions = | |||
| <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line and below all other reports. --> | |||
| If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see ]. | |||
| == Fairlyoddparents1234 v. DreamMcQueen: Edit warring == | |||
| For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see ]. | |||
| <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
| <!-- Including yourself, list editors that are involved, copy and paste the template if more than 2 editors are involved. --> | |||
| * {{userlinks|Fairlyoddparents1234}} <!-- editor 1--> | |||
| * {{userlinks|DreamMcQueen}} <!-- editor 2--> | |||
| <!-- Please note that you must manually notify every user mentioned above. You may place the following template on their talk page to notify them. {{subst:WQA-notice}} --> | |||
| {| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;" | |||
| <!-- Place the names of involved articles or tag pages in this section --> | |||
| | width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the ]''' | |||
| * {{la|List of CBS television affiliates (table)}} | |||
| |- | |||
| * {{la|List of ABC television affiliates (table)}} | |||
| |<inputbox> | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| <!-- Place a description of your situation below this line. As appropriate, include links and diffs to aid WQA volunteers in understand the situation. --> | |||
| prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance | |||
| break=no | |||
| Hello there. I am currently involved in a dispute with ]. I have added a link to ] to ] after where it says "This list does not include independent stations or stations affiliated with The CW". I am not sure why, but he decided to remove it, citing ] as an explanation. What makes me concerned is the fact that he has not yet removed such links from ] (for Telemundo ]s) and ] (for MyNetworkTV O&Os), all three which I have added. To make matters worse, he sometimes deliberately leaves the ] blank. I have attempted to revert my edits until I decided to give up and report this, on account of the policy ]. Also, for ], he has been repeatedly removing the ] from the O&O list, even though I ''still'' kept it in alphabetical order (see edit history). He reverts my edit. I revert back again. I recently had the article put on a one-week edit lock. What concerns me is that there would be consensus at ] before the DMA's could be removed from article lists. There WAS a ], but it was ''NOT'' supposed to affect affiliate lists of the "Big Six". Apparently, DreamMcQueen is not part of the project. In addition, the NBC, FOX and CBS (oh wait, he stripped the DMAs off the CBS table too) have not been affected yet. This has made me think that he is effectively attempting to claim ]; clearly a violation of "Da Rules". In addition, I am starting to be concerned about his ] in general, as it seems he is abusing the vandalism marker. In my personal opinion, I think he should begin to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines here. If he does not comply, I think it's safe to declare him a vandal. Further problems with this issue and it's headed for the RFC noticeboard. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (]) ] 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| width=40 | |||
| :It is best that you refrain from constantly applying policies and guidelines towards this user's post as it may be interpreted as a personal attack where the user will just ignore it and take it as an insult. Also your tone of language at the user's talk page such as saying ''"Piss me off via edit war or any other method and I WILL IMMEDIATELY REPORT YOU TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AT ALL MEANS!!!!!!! You've been warned. And don't you even dare respond to this at my talk page. Don't you dare get me hot or else you will find yourself hanged above the flames of WP Admin Hell!"'' will definitely not help get your own point across this user at all so I'd advise that you review the ] so that in the future conflicts like this won't happen anymore. Remember that the more civil you post the easier it will be for administrators and other editors to help you both resolve your differences and carry a proper discussion.] (]) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search | |||
| ::Well I have already tried to be civil to him, but he keeps making the problem worse. Besides, I have tried ], but he wouldn't get in the discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (]) ] 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| :::Hi again. Just remember to be civil at all times. If the user insults you next time, just ignore the insulting parts of the comment even if its hard not to and focus on what is the user's point. If that doesn't work then put then you can finally take the problem to either ] or ] where the administrators can take action(such as what had happened here). The easier it is to identify who is more civil the faster it will be for other's to help you out. Anyways it seems like the problem has died down now and an admin had already helped you so that's great progress. Well done. :-) ] (]) 06:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Uncivil behavior == | |||
| {{collapse top|expand=yes|No incivility on the part of Guy. The section is degenerating into a content discussion, WQA isn't here to discuss content issues. ] (])}} | |||
| <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
| <!-- Including yourself, list editors that are involved, copy and paste the template if more than 2 editors are involved. --> | |||
| * {{userlinks|Guy Macon}} | |||
| <!-- Please note that you must manually notify every user mentioned above. You may place the following template on their talk page to notify them. {{subst:WQA-notice}} --> | |||
| <!-- Place the names of involved articles or tag pages in this section --> | |||
| <!-- Place a description of your situation below this line. As appropriate, include links and diffs to aid WQA volunteers in understand the situation. --> | |||
| Guy Macon is following me around in talk pages, where I participate in on topic discussions, and follow my comments with off topic negative comments related to me and to other discussions: | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&diff=500271428&oldid=500222033 | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=500754332 | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=500271415&oldid=500244651 | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=500077085&oldid=500056847 | |||
| Regards. --] (]) 07:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was really hoping to be able to agree with Guy on this. Proper process for dealing with a person who is alleged to be interfering with WP:Consensus process (like forum shopping) is to notify an administrator. Typically, this would be at AN/I. Guy is advised to follow that process. | |||
| ::Please do keep in mind that if you don't get a consensus at one place, you should try to avoid hopping around until you get what you want. In many cases there is an escalation process, and its possible that you are trying to use that process, although it appears Guy doesn't see it that way. I haven't bothered to read the specifics of this, but please honor consensus, or come up with a novel argument and re-argue the dispute. If you feel like people simply aren't listening, feel free to ask for advice on how to approach it next, but don't try to win by taking something to 10 different places. Nenpog is advised to follow this process. -- ] (]) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I looked at the links and do not see a wikiquette issue. It is standard procedure to use the contributions list provided for each user to see whether any follow up to an issue is warranted. The way to respond would be to address the substance of the claims made by Guy Macon, preferably on ''one'' talk page. ] (]) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * OP appears to be forum shopping; nothing wrong with Guy Macon pointing this out. <small>]</small> 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people though. At this point, if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it, not pushed into discussions as a poison pill. -- ] (]) 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::What? Above you say you haven't read the specifics, and now you think it's hounding? While supporting editors is great, some judgment is required to choose which side of a disagreement should be supported. I looked at the links, and there is no hounding—as I mentioned, it is an entirely standard procedure and it appears highly appropriate in this case. ] (]) 10:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What I meant is that I didn't read the specifics of whether Nenpog was "in the right" in going to all these forums. What I can easily see, however, is that Guy is putting a fairly similar set of notices in each place. If Nenpog is forumshopping, there are places for recourse, specifically AN/I is one example. -- ] (]) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you withdrawing your statement suggesting that Guy Macon is hounding another editor? | |||
| :::::If not, some evidence should be provided very soon. | |||
| :::::Anyone with a large number of comments at noticeboards should be aware that people at ANI are tired of every little problem being taken there—it's up to people participating in the community to sort out what they can. ] (]) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've given my advice on this, in fact, I was first, so lay off, relax, and read what I said, or don't, your choice. If you have a particular problem with the word 'hound', please point out exactly what *I* meant by it. Thanks. -- ] (]) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is hard to comprehend how an experienced editor could imagine that it is acceptable to imply that a named editor is hounding another editor. From ], "{{xt|What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence}}". This is a noticeboard, not a 101 Philosophy course where we discuss whether "hound" has an intrinsic meaning. ] (]) 11:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{editconflict}}There's no benefit to Misplaced Pages to hash out exactly what noun (gerund?) is most appropriate to describe GM's behavior. Posting a notice at the various forums that the edits where in response to a particular situation was a reasonable thing to do. Starting an ANI thread is a legitimate alternative. Personally I think GMs action was the less inflammatory course of action to take. <small>]</small> 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::(edit conflict) Sorry, maybe you could point out exactly where I said that Guy Macon is hounding anyone? Please go read what I actually said which was "Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people". Followed by "if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it". So, again, relax, stop looking for additional problems, and focus on the issues brought before us here and the two editors involved. Have a great day. P.S. Although I agree with Nobody Ent's comment about this possibly being the less inflammatory approach, we find ourselves here now, and so he should decide whether to continue the method that brought us here, or take it to AN/I. Wouldn't you agree? -- ] (]) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think ya'll should just agree to disagree and take no further action. <small>]</small> 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::(edit conflict)It would be best if Guy and Nenpog could figure out an amicable way to relate going forward. I don't think AN/I wants to see a post where Nenpog has to report Guy, and I doubt Nenpog wants the reverse. I went ahead and read through a bit more of the debates. Nenpog sounds like a person with a very deep understanding of X-Ray technology and seems to be well received in the discussions. Obviously something led to Nenpog going to outside forums for review and advice, but just as Johnuniq says above, if we're going to make a claim, we should back it up. EdJohnston said Nenpog seemed "to be eager to draw attention to the risks of ionizing radiation to the patient" and advised him to "negotiate patiently on the talk page to see if you can reach agreement with the others". I can't say for sure how much of that has happened, but following an editor from page to page and putting up a 'disclaimer' is not a valid approach to consensus. -- ] (]) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Since it doesn't seem to be staying closed I'll respond instead. I am not involved in this dispute and don't know all of the background. What I do know is what I observed at COIN and on IRC: | |||
| Nenpog has been consistently pushing his views on the wiki on multiple noticeboards/locations etc, including IRC. On #wikipedia-en IRC for example, related to this dispute, he joined the channel to argue that being a doctor in a hospital that has a CT scanner is a conflict of interest. He also tried to argue beyond what was reasonable about basing ] claims off an unreliable source as well. The level of reliable sources required for this exceptional claim just don't exist. He appears unable to accept any of the responses or points made against his point and continues on, a case of ]. It's also clear the content is just not going to go into the article and the consensus is against it, he should drop the ] and walk away. Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation. ] (]) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Do I need to respond to these not related allegations? Why not related? Because it is clear from reading my posts, to which Guy Macon has uniformly replied, that each post of mine was about a separate subject. One was about the operational procedures of the COIN, one was about the MEDRS rules, one was about if simple logic is a synthesis, and one was about due weight. Two of these discussions were opened by other people, and I have only joined them and responded to the discussion. Guy Macon came, and has put there his message, that is not even related to the topic being discussed. | |||
| :IRWolfie joined the discussion here and claimed, well yes, but this is all justified because I am a non related person, that don't know the background, but trust me that I know these non related facts, that prove that Nenpog is the bad guy here, and so he deserves to be followed around with a disclaimer, so that all the other innocent editors will be careful, and this is my own disclaimer here, to warn you of that bad guy, and to remind you, that even if this is not fair, he deserves it. Does this sum it up close enough to what you meant IRWolfie?--] (]) 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I would like to point out that before Nenpog accused me of uncivil behavior he accused me (without evidence) of having an undisclosed conflict of interest. I would have ignored that -- if you volunteer at ] you will get a few false accusations from disputants -- but he also accused another editor who, like me, chooses to reveal his true name and who is an Emergency Room Physician in Canada. ''That'' is totally acceptable behavior. | |||
| This started as a content dispute on ] where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached ].<br /> | |||
| He was then blocked for ] and ].<br /> | |||
| He then started ], taking his dispute to:<br /> | |||
| ],<br /> | |||
| ],<br /> | |||
| ],<br /> | |||
| ],<br /> | |||
| ],<br /> | |||
| ]<br /> | |||
| ],<br /> | |||
| ] (Second time, in a different section),<br /> | |||
| At least one IRC channel (I don't follow IRC),<br /> | |||
| And now he is at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance. | |||
| I have no intention of reporting Nenpog at AN/I or anywhere else, for the simple reason that his behavior is not harming me. I considered ignoring the behavior, but Nenpog has wasted a large amount of other editor's time time in a large number of places, so I decided that I would simply post a short, fact-based explanation of where he has been with this previously each time his forum shopping takes him to a new noticeboard and not comment after that. --] (]) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The only place in which you haven't comment 'after that' was the NOR talk page, and that is so probably only because you didn't have time to, as your first comment there was made recently in the last day. | |||
| :BTW, at the NPOV talk page one of the editors responded to Guy with "Cannot fully agree. Nenpog has asked quite a legitimate question"<sub>Paul Siebert</sub> and then Guy's friend started talking about wolves, and naturally Paul Sibert wondered "What do you mean under "virtual wolves" in this particular case?"<sub>Paul Siebert</sub>. And I ask too, what do wolves has to do with a discussion about due weight, and what all of the above has to do with someone following me around and posting off topic content where it doesn't belong. I don't get it. --] (]) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Update: I have split the fresh disclaimer of Guy from the NOR discussion into a subsection, as it was not related, in accordance with ] sectioning. Guy have undone that split, and accused me of POV pushing that his disclaimer is off topic. Seems like at this point Guy Macon still think that his disclaimer is in its proper place. --] (]) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please ]. You wasted my time at ] after repeatedly being given perfectly good answers elsewhere. I fully approve of that notice there to give the background to what your query was about. My guess is you will eventually be blocked indefinitely as you don't seem to be able to drop the stick. ] (]) 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dmcq, you claim that I was given a good answer to the question ("Is simple logic a SYNTH?"), that was asked at the NOR elsewhere. Please supply a diff of the good answer given elsewhere. --] (]) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe a month ago is about the earliest saying essentially that to you. ] (]) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That wasn't an answer to whether simple logic is a synth. --] (]) 15:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You said 'This is not original research. CT inflict ionizing radiation on patients, and ionizing radiation cause adverse effects' and were responded to with ' When you use a source which does not explicitly mention the article's subject that is WP:SYNTH'. That was pretty clear about you basing the insertion on simple logic and a person telling you it was SYNTH and not admissable under the original research policy and they pointed you at the relevant place which explains it in more detail. ] (]) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is pretty clear that that person wrote nothing about simple logic, and gave me an advice that is in line with use of simple logic: "I think that the way to post this is to provide a source which states the range of radiation to which CT machines expose patients, then state that range and reference a source which says what happens at that range."<sub>Blue Rasberry</sub>. There was no suggestion that I would find an answer in the ] section, as ] was used as a noun ("that is WP:SYNTH"<sub>Blue Rasberry</sub>). A referral was given to the ] section, which doesn't include anything discussing logic. The claim that the source must explicitly mention the article's subject was not accompanied by any quote from any policy. For staying on topic, I didn't include here arguments that show that following the links to the mentioned WP:terms wouldn't have provided me with an answer to the question, since that is not relevant to the current question, of whether I have gotten an answer to the simple logic question by Blue Rasberry, and I think that what I wrote proves that I haven't. | |||
| :::::::Do you have an other diff, that you think is a good answer given elsewhere?--] (]) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This is a clear case of ]. No matter how many times Nenpog is told that he is wrong, he won't listen. In regards to Nenpog's latest complaint, he put my comment into a separate section which he labeled "Guy Macon's disclaimer" while putting his comments and the other responses into a new "Main discussion" section. I reverted with the comment "''Nenpog, stop modifying or moving comments that are critical of you in order to push your POV that they are 'off topic' or in any other way not replies to the comment above them.''" he ignored that edit comment as he ignored Dmcq's response to his complaint above -- more ]. --] (]) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Funny that you come up with ] that fits your behavior. Did you hear ] comments btw? Do you think that you are being civil? You once wrote that if anyone find your behavior not civil they should tell you. Consider yourself told. --] (]) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| This is now at ]. --] (]) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiquette violation in summary == | |||
| <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
| <!-- Including yourself, list editors that are involved, copy and paste the template if more than 2 editors are involved. --> | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lihaas}} <!-- editor 1--> | |||
| * {{userlinks|Demiurge1000}} <!-- editor 2--> | |||
| * {{userlinks|SudoGhost}} <!-- editor 3--> | |||
| <!-- Please note that you must manually notify every user mentioned above. You may place the following template on their talk page to notify them. {{subst:WQA-notice}} --> | |||
| <!-- Place the names of involved articles or tag pages in this section --> | |||
| * ] | |||
| <!-- Place a description of your situation below this line. As appropriate, include links and diffs to aid WQA volunteers in understand the situation. --> | |||
| I created the ] article and Lihaas added quickly some tags: , . I added more references easily, it is an event covered in mainstream media ( in Google News). Soon, I was again by Lihaas and he wrote in my talkpage. After other users the tags he put in ], I the changes. He has named my comment as . I don't delete his comments using that summaries, so I prefer he doesn't do it. Regards. ] (]) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :i was perfectly polite , and he responds aggressively and starts to revert things on my talk page (that was undone by ''others''). . Im entitled to withdraw stuff from my talk page, as is anyone. | |||
| :"You should not delete the comments of other editors" shows a misunderstanding of WP policies. His inclusion of the other editors who reverted him on my talk page is more deceptive as theyre not involved in anything. Only points to ] | |||
| ::At any rate, tag removals require discussion per BRD as i ''politely'' requested. This wasnt done. And a discussion is ongoing on that page. ] (]) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure Lihaas could improve his way of dealing with other editors, but in this case, "nonsense" was a description of Lihaas' opinion of the edit, not of the editor. It's not unduly rude. Further, the comment that Lihaas put on Emijrp's talk page was completely unproblematic - it was a request to discuss and not edit war. (Although I have no idea what the smiley at the end of it was trying to imply). From the diffs given above, Lihaas is only at 1RR on the article page itself. Emijrp is at 2RR on Lihaas' talk page - Emijrp seems to have misunderstood what it says on ]. Lihaas was being slightly aggressive on the article and dismissive of Emijrp's disagreement, but the problems are not as described in the complaint. Both editors should go away and discuss it politely on the article talk page. --] (]) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Smiley to make thing slighthearted in case it was construed as aggressive. | |||
| :::But i did starta talk page discussion at said page. Though i handled well not perfect, but well] (]) 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is best to avoid being so harsh when you are deleting talk page sections. You can simply remove them with "archiving" for example. Alternatively you can just leave them, or archive in bulk. ] (]) 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On the contrary, deleting a talk page section with the edit summary "archiving" might be considered misleading, if one did not actually intend to archive the material. --] (]) 21:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Good point, it can be just deleted without a message. ] (]) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okey , will do] (]) 04:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Wasnt with that reason and that wasnt the issue. All respondents here siaid that it wasnt a fault as the OP suggested.] (]) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Not resolved, as Lihaas has already gone back to using exactly the same type of edit summary on the same page; --] (]) 17:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see the the edit history for the edit summary that preceded mine. There are quite clarly 2 sides to a coin if you see that other summary. At any rate, weve already been discussing resolution and solved it ourselves. Quick and easy | |||
| ::Please dohn't stalk my edits.] (]) 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Constantly being following around Misplaced Pages with Uncivil intents about my actions. == | |||
| <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> | |||
| <!-- Including yourself, list editors that are involved, copy and paste the template if more than 2 editors are involved. --> | |||
| '''Users involved''' | |||
| * {{userlinks|Bleubeatle}} <!-- Me--> | |||
| * {{userlinks|Wesley Mouse}}<!-- editor 1--> | |||
| * {{userlinks|BabbaQ}} <!-- editor 2--> | |||
| * {{userlinks|CT Cooper}} <!-- editor 3--> | |||
| <!-- Please note that you must manually notify every user mentioned above. You may place the following template on their talk page to notify them. {{subst:WQA-notice}} --> | |||
| <!-- Place the names of involved articles or tag pages in this section --> | |||
| '''Articles/pages/diffs involved''' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| <!-- Place a description of your situation below this line. As appropriate, include links and diffs to aid WQA volunteers in understand the situation. --> | |||
| '''Description''' | |||
| ('''Please note''': The story is actually long. I admit that I should've gone here earlier but I'm just going to get to the main points. The users involved(including myself) will post the other parts, diffs and other articles involved later when we all have time.) | |||
| This began when I nominated the Ell & Nikki article for deletion by mistake because the AfD didn't become the discussion I planned. I gave several points but got very little replies or input from users other than being told about WP:Notability guidelines. They didn't really comment much about the I point made but instead focused on posting about why the article shouldn't be deleted. After the discussion was closed prematurely due to a snowball keep I was thinking of asking the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open it with the hopes of getting other Wikiproject users involved but it was rejected I figured that if I just ask a question regarding my point rather than re-opening the AfD I would get the answer that I am looking for However I started to panic when these two users (BabbaQ and CT Cooper) followed me . I later discovered that BabbaQ has been notifying Wesley Mouse about my activities and ]. This is when it became a big problem. I got extremely worried about this so I left a note on this page But their replies gave me the feeling that they were ganging up on me. I made replies that could've have violated several policies and guidelines. I think this was because I've never been in a position before where I've been completely misunderstood and this really hurt me and made me feel frustrated. In particular, Wesley Mouse mentions that I was being negative in the AfD. Something that I completely disagreed with and it really hurt me when that user told me this. I later decided to drop the argument because it was just going nowhere. This is what I just think. | |||
| After some users suggested that I should do a merger and I took this suggestion to the talk page of the article in question more arguments . It ended when Wesley Mouse gave me a kindly written letter on my talk page asking me to put my merger proposal on hold for now I respected his letter so I agreed. I decided to move on, editing other articles, and going through several guidelines and policies here in Misplaced Pages so that I could handle this problem more easily in the future. | |||
| During the course of that time I still had doubts and I asked for Editor's assistance if whether or not it is safe to propose a merger Just yesterday, they(BabbaQ, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) managed to find me there. I went through their talk pages and once again suspicions about my intents have been aroused. I'm not sure how they managed to find the page but my only guess is that wthey've got my talk page on their watch list and recently a user left a which may have notified them of my recent activities and went through my contributions to check on what I am up to. Then notified each other of my page. | |||
| '''''Certain points that I am failing to understand with these users?''''' | |||
| * Implies that the article meets ] and ] therefore my suggestion is unnecessary. | |||
| * Believes that a clear consensus had already been reached on the . Therefore, doing a merger proposal would be going against this consensus and could be a violation of policies and guidelines. | |||
| '' '''Why do I disagree with these points?''''' | |||
| *I disagree because according to ]: ''"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline...'''This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article'''."'' | |||
| * I believe that consensus was only to Keep the article including its information in Misplaced Pages. That doesn't mean that its content or information is protected from being merged to other articles. I '''do''' respect the consensus and I am not trying to wipe out Ell & Nikki's evidence/existence in this site but according to this page :''"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."'' | |||
| '''''Main point''''' | |||
| * I believe that ] article is unlikely to be expanded in the future because it only covers their participation and involvements together at the ] and ]. Therefore it is best to merge it into the "]". Besides we already have separate articles about each of the duos ] and ]. | |||
| * After both events ended, ] and ] have not released anymore material together as a group. They have just released their solo materials separately and done separate endeavors. They may have been involved in some more group activities together but these are not really outside their Eurovision Song Contest involvements. This gave me some doubts that Ell & Nikki was just formed for the purpose of participating in the contest and performing/presenting the song. They were merely an official group but just a collaboration between two singers(eg. ], ]), and ]). | |||
| I am feeling really scared right now. I feel like my experience here in Misplaced Pages will never be the same again after my encounter with these users because I am constantly being followed and my contributions are being taken . I am also worried that they will report me and get my account banned in Misplaced Pages which I do not wish to happen. Can someone please help us get into an understanding? Thanks ] (]) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There is quite a lot here to read for a speedy response to be made, and the time here in the UK is just gone midnight. I find the entire thing to be perplexed and being taken way out of context than what was ''actually'' said. Nevertheless, I shall be courteous and delay my want of sleep so that I can respond to this accordingly. ]]] 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : A lot of what is cited above is a month old and I thought that some kind of mutual agreement had been reached to move on. We have long past the point here in which it is reasonable to request that you ]. I understand that you felt others were "ganging up on" you, but you choose to make some serious accusations about other users, and a defensive response was justified. As for this "following around" issue, I think we've had this conservation. If a person starts a discussion about other users or issues to which they are involved, you should expect them to find out and comment on what you have said about them. If this was users following you round commenting on multiple unrelated topics, I would see the point, but as it stands I don't. There is no right under policy for users to demand that others don't find out or don't partake in a discussions, to which they are a party, on a public noticeboard or project talk page - this is an open and collaborative project, and a person's contributions list is public for reason. Bleubeatle's other complaint here seems to that of disagreement in a content dispute, which is fine, but this page is not for resolving content disputes. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]</small> 23:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::CT, since you are listed as one of the involved users, could you be more specific on what you feel "some kind of mutual agreement" means? It sounds rather vague to me. If you could be specific, we might be able to see if this could be agreed on by all parties here. -- ] (]) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, I have read this entirely, and have pre-written an in-depth response covering every little grain of sand detail thoroughly. There is quite a lot though, so would you like me to post it in its entirety, or in segments? I'm happy either way. ]]] 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time now is 2:45am, so I'm off to bed as I'm absolutely knackered and I have a busy schedule in the morning. If there are any questions/comments that require my attention, then please could you leave a notice on my talk page, so that I can read them when I get a spare moment tomorrow. In the meantime, if you wish to read my pre-written response (which is very lengthy), then it can be accessed ]. G'night all - ]]] 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can only say that the title of this discussion is the basis of the problem. Bleubeatle throws accusations around and also stated that its not OK for us to respond to posts which are directed at us which is very odd. My main concern has been that Bleubeatle seems unwilling/unable to let the matter go for the moment or at best discussing it rationally. When given a response which isn't in line with Bleubealtes own opinions he/she either simply ignores and asks the same question again or acts like he/she doesnt understand the reply. On the question of merging I am under the impression that a majority of the responses Bleubeatle has recieved has been in favour of Keeping all three article such as the AfD on the matter and also most responses on talk pages. And still the user keeps bringing the matter up and that is where it gets trickier. Bleubeatle has the right to start new threads etc, but now it seems like the user is not following several users good faith suggestion that the user waits too ask about the Ell & Nikki possible merger for awhile and let the matter cool down. I find that a bit offensive that the user doesnt wait a while for it all to cool down, is it the users intention to stir up emotions or? I dont know. The title of this section is offensive in itself and shows that the user is unwilling to compromise on the matter. My other opinions can be found on the several sections Bleubeatle has started all over the Misplaced Pages about the Ell & Nikki merger. And I am not willing to respondany further and waste my precious time on this matter which has been kept alive by Bleaubeatle for over a month now. This is my only comment on this section. --] (]) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|::::}} | |||
| OK, I would like to know how we can be accused of having "uncivil intents", when the accuser kept on telling people who disagreed with their opinions, to "leave conversations" such as , , and , are just a few examples of such remarks. The accuser also admitted to being uncivil himself towards BabbaQ, which can be seen , and in the same comment he took other's comments entirely out of context. In Bleubeatle made false accusations about myself, in saying I had informed Bleubeatle that BabbaQ wanted to "fight". I had never said such remarks, and fail to comprehend how Bleubeatle came to the conclusion that I had made such a statement. But that very same diff, also shows one of the numerous occasions that the user has redacted their own comments shortly after someone had responded to his original comments, thus making it look that the responders where making no sense in their remarks. What would possess a user to do that, unless there were hidden intentions? Nevertheless, everyone (as far as I am aware) assumed good faith in Bleu's unknown reasons for redactions. | |||
| I find the fact that some people are being accused of "stalking", when this has never been the case. As I am the main editor of the Project newsletter, I have every member on my watchlist, so that I can make sure the EdwardsBot had delivered the newsletter to everyone without any technical glitches. Is this the wrong thing to do? Also, Bleubeatle keeps on stating that everyone questioned his intentions to have an article deleted, and that he never had any such inclinations to have an article deleted to begin with. If that be the case, then why would someone with no intent to have anything deleted, proceed with a nomination of deletion? Surely that is evidential enough to show that every action and comment being posted in regards to the deletion was premeditated with intent. | |||
| Then we come to the points that Bleu has raised in bullet-points above. Every single one of those points where originally asked in the AfD, and everyone who voted to keep, explained to Bleu that he had misunderstood the guidance on ], informing him that those guidelines where for events and not living persons. The same people also pointed out that ] would be the correct guidance to look into. Providing the correct page link was an act of goodwill, and in the assumption that Bleu was unaware of that page. However, following the snowball closure at ], Bluebeatle went on what can only be described as a canvassing exercise posting the same questions and directly/inadvertently naming users on talk pages ], ], ], ], ], and more recently ]; also accusing an editor of in regards to the AfD debate. Blatantly going around various pages casting false accusations about other editors is by far more uncivil, and from reading the before the user redacted their own words, again, then it is no wonder that people would start to have suspicions about why someone who is generally quiet and reserved, would start to behave in such a condescending manner. Anyhow, I have clearly written a lengthy response here as it is, so I shall pause for now, and am willing to answer any further questions in due course. ]]] | |||
| I am also somewhat frustrated that this has been dug-up yet again, since I have a lot better things to do with my time. I am however happy to answer questions, and what I meant by "some kind of mutual agreement" was closing comments made on the discussion at ], in which Bleubeatle amidst some problematic comments, that he wouldn't reply any more, in which I interpreted to mean that he was going to drop the issue, for which I was happy to do. Bleubeatle however instead starting more threads on the subject, sometimes in inappropriate places such as ], and usually containing at least some kind of questionable statement about what other editors had done or said. | |||
| What Bleubeatle needs to understand is that when you propose something and consensus doesn't go your way, you let the issue die and move on, even if you are not personally satisfied with the reasoning - you don't ] by starting lots more threads until you get the answer you want. Starting one or at most two more threads on a subject might be defensible depending on the circumstances, but the level to which Bleubeatle took it was way past what was acceptable. | |||
| There is clearly a lot of emotion in the above comments by Bleubeatle, which I see as unjustified for the situation he actually faced - for instance nobody has called for him to be banned before now. As I've said before, his earlier comments stating "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" do come back to haunt him here. Bleubeatle needs to learn that editing a collaborative project such as this does involve receiving criticism and dealing with disagreement, and he needs to learn to handle such events appropriately, and not respond with extreme emotion or unjustified allegations about "questioning my intent" or the like, which can and did in this case, make things worse. Finally, and most importantly of all, Bleubeatle needs to realize that his actions have consequences. It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant ] to this project, and that such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is not going to be put-up with indefinitely. I have repeatedly tried to explain to Bleubeatle where he is going wrong, but such efforts have failed so far. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]</small> 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Before I reply to any details regarding the posts above me here I just want to start off my saying that the user I found the most difficult to communicate with was BabbaQ. I first encountered this user when I first . The user objected and told me about it on my . Later on after the AfD ended and while I was asking for the non-admin user who closed it for re-opening, the user began following on this page. | |||
| I have also noticed that for most of the time, the user has always been constantly the other two users(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) of my actions on each other's talk pages as seen on some of these diffs: </nowiki>]</nowiki>]</nowiki>]</nowiki>]. From my observations, this may explain why the other two users have followed me around Misplaced Pages ever since. During the discussion that I opened on this , the user became disinterested and rude when after many agreed that the article should be merged instead. A user noticed this . I also noticed it on the article's talk page when I tried to converge with the user ]. The user even tells me that ''"its a fight you are unlikely to win unfortunately"'' and ''"are you sure you are not looking for proof?. Im out of this discussion. Its over and done."''. The user clearly opposes anything being done on the article whether it is deleting or merging and doesn't want anymore or anyone to discuss about it in the future. That kind of behavior should stop because other users may find this rude and will not lead to a proper discussion. From my observation, the user seems to be trying to gather support to prevent the inevitable from happening and that is by arousing suspicions about my contributions on these two users'(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) talk pages. The user needs to realize that ] and that ]. Also I believe that the user has rejected all signs of neutrality and peace as shown on these diffs:</nowiki>], </nowiki>], </nowiki>],</nowiki>] and </nowiki>].] (]) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I will probably give another statement like this paragraph for the other two users later on if it is needed. Just reading through some of the paragraphs above, I have to tell you all that I already understand most the things that you've said. What needs to change is your approach and your posts towards users like myself. You may think that you could be doing something right but sometimes it can hurt people as well. No one in Misplaced Pages enjoys being bossed around. I'm pretty sure neither of you do. Sometimes you need to take a break and have a good look at your own posts. You should be more careful with what you write and understand that not everyone communicates the same way you do. ]. ] (]) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, BabbaQ has never been rude in any of his comments. He, like any other editor on Misplaced Pages, is entitled to put across his opinion in regards to article related matters, whether it be creations, change in policies, deletions etc, it is what is known as building a consensus, gathering data etc. If any editor, and not just BabbaQ, wishes to oppose something then they are perfectly within their rights to tell someone why they oppose it and provide reasons for that. If everyone was to just agree to everything, then we might as well not hold any form of democratic discussions, and scrap any such discussion boards all together. | |||
| :Secondly, what you need to realise here is that if you go to other talk pages and start slagging off people without letting them know, then yes, it would only be a matter of time until those who you slagged off would find out about it. And they would be well within their rights to comment on what is being said about them. You cannot and should not, just put across '''your''' side of events and thing that the entire picture is complete. To put it hypothetically, would you go to a court of law and only allow one side to be told and then make a judgement without hearing what the other side has to say? No, you wouldn't - so why should that be any different in here, unless you don't want others to know the real truth. | |||
| :Thirdly, in relation to redacting of comments. Not only do you start to redact your own original posts after someone has already responded to them, in order to make it look like no sense is being made. But after reviewing is clear evidence of disruptive behaviour and goes against ]. What gives you the right to hide someone else's comments without their consent? From everything that is clearly visible and the way hat you speak to people, that you are guilty of your own accusations. | |||
| :And finally, for the record, the comment CT Cooper posted above which reads '''''"It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant ] to this project'''''", the person being refereed to in that statement is myself. As it is known by some editors on here, my mother passed away a few weeks ago, and on 2 July my uncle also passed away. I am going through enough pressure and stress at home dealing with that, and also the preparations for my volunteering at London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. By dragging up something that should have been dead and buried from the moment the AfD closed, has made me physically sick. I couldn't get a wink of sleep the minute this discussion was opened, when I finally managed to sleep, it was only for 4 hours. And then after that I ended up vomiting as a result of the stress that you are putting me through. Several uninvolved editors, and not just the ones listed above, have repeatedly told you to just let it go, drop the stick, walk away from it, get on with more constructive editing. You yourself have even demanded people should let things go. How can you expect people to let thing go, if you go on this crusade of dragging up shit (excuse the language) knowing full well what the consequences are, and how much distress you know it will bring to people. For someone to go about such nature is most likely doing it in a vindictive and malevolent manner. I still have my in-depth detailed response, which answers every single one of the sentences of your re-edited opening post above. And I say re-edited, because the edit history shows that you changed parts of your original report, which is becoming a bit of a normal pattern with you lately. ]]] 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
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 |