Revision as of 13:02, 9 June 2010

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:Berean Hunter

Before my latest block, I was insulted by user Berean Hunter on the Battle of Gettysburg talk page. You can read his text as follows:

Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. I can't believe this pissant is still bothering the adults. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here. Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive.... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ouch. You better take a look at WP:NPA. Remember to comment on content, not contributor. Also taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding would help you cooperate better.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (face palm) I have no interest in seeing you stay around and do not want to cooperate with you. I stated last September that you were a waste of time. You burned up any good faith that you had coming long ago. You need to be indef-blocked or at the very least topic-banned (but I'm in favor of the former). You have a history of edit-warring and the deception you pulled in your lame sockpuppetry attempt means that you are not worthy of respect. Right, Abl3igail? As for NPA, I don't take advice from the one who said of the other editors here..."Wow, you guys are jerks." (12 November 2009 in the archives) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And do you know what happened. I ended up getting banned for "edit warring" while this user just received a warning. How unfair is that? I never insulted him yet all he gets is a warning. I wasn't even really edit warring. Not only that, but this was done by the corrupt Administrator MLauba. If you notice, Mlauba removed Berean Hunter's worst comments just so that I couldn't use that in an unblock request (which he also directly said in this comment: Given the circumstances, I hope you'll forgive me for having taken the necessary steps directly, but I really would hate to have your edits become part of his unblock request. Enjoy the peace while it lasts :) MLauba (Talk) 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC) He also apologizes for warning him!

I want justice. I want this user banned, MLauba's administrative powers taken away, and an apology. Yes, I know that I made quite a few mistakes on my own part, but that doesn't mean I have to be the only one punished.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you aren't going to get what you want... the user isn't going to be banned and User:MLauba isn't going to lose administrative access. You've been blocked 5 times, all for disruptive editing and/or edit warring. Just by looking at this, I'd suggest you review your own actions and think if you were reasonable. Now, I've looked at the talk page discussion, and I have to agree with the blocking administrator. Comments such as So you're telling me that you use the NPS whenever it supports you and you don't use it whenever it doesn't help you. Way to remain unbiased--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC) are unnecessary and tend to escalate the situation. The users you are complaining against have much more edits and have been on Misplaced Pages much longer, so it can be inferred that they know Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies better than you. However, I understand that you also know the policies, but there's no need to be so pointy with other editors.

Take a look at User:Berean_Hunter's comments on the page, particularly Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. redacted. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here.. He clearly points out your canvassing other editors to join the argument on yourself, which is unacceptable behavior. I'd suggest you drop this and avoid such confrontations in the future. Netalarm 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Highly disrupting editing

In the past few months, I have tolerated User:Digirami and User:MicroX in terms of editing South American football pages. While I understand that no editor owns the page, I know for a fact that wikipedia holds special consideration over those who have edited a page and made major contributions to them. It took me a while to realize it but the two fore mentioned have only serve to regress progress on the pages. Just reading the history on this pages and their sub-pages are evidence of this (1, 2 and 3). Simply put, they are not editors; they just like to disrupt progress for the better with highly outdated ideals. It has surpassed that level of simply "edit warring" for having different views. This has become borderline vandalism.

I have a keen interest in transforming every page in CONMEBOL to have a Featured status...I need help dealing with this problem. I am afraid certain admin have also been involved in this. For example, I have reported this glaring act against wikipedia's policy on civility and nothing was done about it. However, and admin bans Digirami and I for a three-revert rule that never happens, gives him 48 hours and gives me a week. As I have mentioned before in talk pages, I am afraid wikipedia is becoming a club. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Like his definition of vandalism, Jamen Somasu's definition of disruptive editing is baffling. One little disagreement on an infobox parameter and my edits is called "highly disruptive". Beyond that, I don't see any proof of disruptive editing. If you look at the articles in question, User:MicroX has made one edit in the Copa Libertadores article all year; his Copa Sudamericana edits include reverting vandalism, reverting the deletion of citations, proofreading, etc.; zero edits in the Recopa article. My edits include fine tuning edits made my other users and/or correcting of incorrect data across all three articles. Sure there are disagreement between myself and Jamen over some things, but those are clearly made in good faith and are hardly disruptive.

I would also add that Jamen Somasu should bit his tongue on this issue since he too has come across as disruptive by not engaging in consensus building (very early on, and probably still), sometimes rejecting community input (for example: from the WikiFootball), and refusing to get the point. In addition, he has gone against the policy on civility on numerous occasions. Digirami (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MicroX is curretnly vandalising an important template here. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've pinged the last admin to block Jamen about the recidivism. For now, folks, please don't get drawn into any silly edit warring. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on! This guys are now getting ridiculous with the vandalism and, worse, there are admin trying to cover for them in such a blatant way (the one above being a prime example). Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please notice, Jamen Somasu has been blocked indefinitely for a number of issues. Digirami (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan

This editor has been warned previously about making comments about other editors. This comment is clearly unacceptable. In the past this user backs off after being warned (usually by an admin) but returns after things quieten down again with the same comments and behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Far from being "unacceptable", that comment seems to be a fair assessment of your agenda. Is it your intention to force your pov by having everyone who opposes it banned? Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's behaviour like this that has the community commenting on your behaviour. Do you think its helpful? All it does is shows that you really don't understand WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you actually want to be blocked to give you some time to read core policy? --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "community", just a few malcontents who get bent out of shape when the truth is pointed out to them. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HK, why don't you raise a complaint about User:Bjmullan? See his recent edit summaries! MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you complain about me MBM, you troll me enough. Bjmullan (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't "troll" you, but I do study all of your edits in detail, for obvious reasons. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shame you don't check your own... Bjmullan (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

An AN/I report was filed yesterday. This can be closed. Thanks for the ... help? --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University

User:75.23.202.149 has made multiple reverts of content related to Ohio State University by placing the word "the" in front of "Ohio State University" -- normally, something that could be handled through discussions. To make matters worse, the user may actually be technically right in these reverts even though it appears that consensus may not be supporting such moves.

I first asked the user and other interested parties to participate in a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. (which isn't exactly a "neutral point of view" name but the discussion was already started) about the topic. To my knowledge, the user has not approached the discussion.

The user has revereted changes for at least two users, calling them "vandalism" -- one at the article Edwin Sweetland by User:Jweiss11 and another at Paul Bixler by myself.

The user has made mutliple changes in multiple articles around this topic, and it looks like we might need an outside admin to come and take a look to provide some guidance. What's the best approach to take from here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the Wikiquette issue, but have gone to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. and provided a link to WP:THE, which seems to be relevant. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I found a third accusation by the editor at Sam Willaman where the editor accused me of "dangerous vandalism" --Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket

I don't mind robust discussion, but this individual has overstepped the mark. I left a message on his talk page here asking him to discuss on the talk page before removing material that is the subject of contention. After receiving a dismissive reply, I reminded him again here of the need to discuss. His response here was to tell me to stop my "fucking games". I left him a warning about his offensive language and personal attack here; he responded here by telling me to "grow the fuck up". I think Misplaced Pages can do without this kind of infantile behavior. BlackCab (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup sounds like some good advice. You can bitch and moan but if you aren't competent enough to read the diffs I odn't know what else to say. You seem to like to hold others accountable for their behavior yet take none of your own. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)\

So now that you want to run to other people and cover for your fuck ups want to explain your comments here?

Hey I though tit was pithy, consider your own reversions.....], ]. Looks aq little like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you think? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the diffs you provided above were mine, so whatever point you're trying to make lacks any validity. Unlike you, I have spelt out my reasons for editing the article the way I have. If you're not prepared to discuss changes you make to articles, then don't make them. BlackCab (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit in the diffs supplied by Hell In A Bucket (the more recent version in both diffs is the same version) was made by me, with the simple edit summary, "copyedit, redundancy", and consisted of uncontested edits. The (two different) old versions in both the diffs were by BlackCab, but don't seem to support Hell In A Bucket's point either. If an accusation is being made of my edit as awkwardly implied by these diffs, please explain more clearly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's move him to the right, all wikilawyering aside how does this explain anything? ] and ]. Does everyone feel like the world makes sense again now that blackcabs comment went from leftside to right? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain who this other Black Cab fellow is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's Break this down. Let's play connect the dots for BlackCab since he's obviously having difficulty telling reality from fantasy.

Diff 1 ] Where I specifically ask him to discuss a change he is making on the Jehovahs witness page.

Diff 2 ] Where BlackCab specifically refused any discussion.

Diff 3 ] <y reversion to the insistence on not discussing on talkpage.

Diff 4 ] Blackcab completely ignores the request for discussion and accuses me of what I'm asking him to do.

Diff 5 See above pasted comments to my requests for clarification and the refusal to answer.

Whatever is happening here you have a SPA that is gaming the system and play victim when he is not even close to being one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And more obscenities here. BlackCab (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I use the word fuck. Get used to it or ignore it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.  Sandstein  19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to this issue, which is still apparently not resolved, Hell in a Bucket still is having issues. In response to complaining about the block on a article talk page a user responded to his talk page to which Hell in a Bucket insisted that it wasn't his fault and the blocking admin was "BLOCK HAPPY", in violation of good faith guidelines. I responded by pointing out that the behavior for which he was blocked was explicitly prohibited by WP:CIVIL here. His response was to blank the entire discussion as "bullshit" and to leave a rant on my talk page telling me that he doesn't care about my opinion, and "posting crap". When I subsequently reverted as vandalism being told that my opinion was "crap", I got this snide remark. Which was then reversed with "fuck it, it aint even worth the time."

--Pstanton (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, did you think this was going to lessen the heat of the situation? If people keep poking at him what do you think is going to happen. Give the guy a little breathing space, jumping at him for the high crime of using the phrase "block happy" is adding drama for no gain.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to give him space, but considering he keeps bringing it up, I'm not sure why you are implying that I am harassing him. I made a single edit on his talk page, disagreeing with him and showing the policy I think he violated in response to his claim that the block was not his fault. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so heated, but he has had the same fact pointed out to him repeatedly by other users and admins. And despite your sarcastic reference to it as "high crime", I actually do think it is completely inappropriate to flame  Sandstein  as editing in bad faith. And my other edit was an apology, some advice and a request that he not use obscenities when editing my talk page. I do not consider this "poking". --Pstanton (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Grudge over a minor editing dispute, continuing aggression

Following my tagging Sabrina Blond for an A7 speedy deletion, the creator has become incredibly hostile. He had created the page repeatedly today, and it was deleted several times. Perhaps I misunderstood WP:BLANKING, but either way, in practice, I see user talk page blanking of warnings being reverted. However, when I reverted, explaining my view of WP:BLANKING in that it isn't allowed to remove deletion notices before the issue is closed, he started flaming me on both our talk pages, and in his edit summaries.

.

Then he started reverting my removal of a red link, without explanation.

Eventually, the speedy was declined as he had managed to find a source and footnote it to show that the subject had actually received a notable award. I let it go, unwatched the page, and moved on. And I still got this

I feel that his editing behavior has been completely inappropriate throughout. Non-communicative, bad faith assumptions, flames. --Pstanton (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Pstanton was also reported by User:Rickmer to WP:AIV for "trolling" and "stalking". I declined the AIV and left a notification and comment on the user's talk page, which for the most part sums up rather well my thoughts on Rickmer's reactions to this event. Aside from an edit with a slightly puzzling summary between my initial and followup comments, however, this seems to have diffused, and I have not observed any further altercation. If both parties can agree to let this just peter out, I believe we can consider this Resolved, though I cannot presume to speak for either. - Vianello (Talk) 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was frankly going to let it go as well, and ignore it when he made this final edit, which I thought was amazingly petty. And, honestly, I want to take down the image he has up on his talkpage, User_talk:Rickmer. I would do it myself, as I think it violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, but he has made it clear that any attempt to communicate on his talk page from me is "stalking", and so I wanted to at least discuss it first. That is my only real interest in this issue unless he continues in like vein. --Pstanton (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request, I think. In your position, I wouldn't really feel comfortable having it up there either. If User:Rickmer would be all right with burying that visual hatchet I think we can settle this. Does that sound agreeable? - Vianello (Talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely. --Pstanton (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, its been 3 days since Rickmer has done anything.... Would someone be willing to remove his picture per WP:UP#POLEMIC? If he is just going to ignore it, I'd like have the picture, or at least the reference and link to my userpage removed from that picture and move on. --Pstanton (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, since there is no objection I have dealt with it myself and consider the matter closed. --Pstanton (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution