Revision as of 22:32, 27 June 2011

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

Active alerts

Jclemens

• Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following exchange from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl is pretty self-explanatory:

How much do you really know about this book, this publisher, and this author? I'm suspecting not much, but I'd like to hear your perspective on your own level of clued-in-ness before I expound farther. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should discuss the sources and the guidelines, not each other. Msnicki (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value informed by, oh, being in the IT field for a decade or two and actually having read and used the book in question? Jclemens (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the "other words" are that I do own a copy, but you're being uncivil, bordering on personal attack and you should stop. Now. Personal experience is irrelevant here, which is why I don't discuss mine and no one cares about yours. Msnicki (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's some mighty thin skin there, when I was simply trying to AGF about your motivations in nominating such a book for deletion. I do think you are either prone to hyperbole or you have a very... unique view of what constitutes a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, Jclemens got two warnings, the first just a gentle reminder and the second unequivocal, that incivility is inappropriate. Even after a clear request to stop, he's still at it.

Normally, I would simply let it pass. But Jclemens is an admin and should be held to a higher standard. He should know better. Msnicki (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint. Jclemens was absolutely correct in telling you that you seem to have a very unique view on what constitutes a personal attack. The question was quite simple and straightforward, so if you are unwilling to indicate just how much you know about the subject in question, that raises alarm bells about your judgement as an editor. It was a good thing you withdrew the nomination yourself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The "no one cares about yours" comment wasn't the most civil reply I've ever seen. Why not call it a wash and move on? -- Avanu (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A question that remarks on my "clued-in-ness" and his suspicion that I don't know anything does not strike me as "simple and straightforward". And given that it's a second warning and in response to his remarks about being "informed by, oh, being in the IT field for a decade or two" (again, implying that he has experience and I don't), I think my reminder that personal experience is irrelevant is reasonable. Certainly, I don't think it justifies more personal remarks about my "mighty thin skin" or that I'm "prone to hyperbole". Finally, I have no idea why it was a "good thing" I withdrew my nomination myself. Were you going to beat me up otherwise? I changed my position because new sources were offered; I often change my WP:!VOTEs when that happens. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A question that remarks on my "clued-in-ness"

It is the sort of question that naturally arises. Your past record (from just what little I've seen of it) has plenty of cases where (in a phrase that's quite nicely put and certainly civil), 'you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value' . I rather like the 'sterile lens of policy' part, it well-describes a number of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy, that's a completely unjustified (and unjustifiable) blanket slam about my "past record". Like many here, I'm anonymous. You have no idea what personal experience I might have and neither is it relevant. I think my record is just fine. And that particular comment by Jclemens was particularly incorrect: I do have a copy of the book. (Actually, I have two copies, the first and third editions.) Msnicki (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You presumably came here to receive input from others and reflect on it; if you came here with the idea that either everyone agrees with you or everyone is wrong, we are probably wasting our time when giving you the apparent input you were requesting. I think experience can greatly shape whether you know what you are talking about or not, and it can be very relevant in assessing how much you need to be told so you can understand why this article was being kept. You should have answered the question; when your response lacks an answer, it is not helpful. Still, he suggested an answer to you and your response only corrected a small part of that answer. I think his response to your accusation was reasonable in the circumstances. So the first question here is whether your concerns were justified - they weren't, and that's probably a reflection that you were being oversensitive (and this impression is furthered by you frivolously stating that there was some sort of inappropriate incivility). Jclemens probably put it much more eloquently than I have (or would have) to be honest. And by the way, I said it was a good thing you withdrew the nomination yourself so no further time or resources were wasted on a nomination which was, from what I can see, going to fail anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that it's okay to be rude and uncivil just so long as you disagree strongly enough with the other editor's opinions. I don't think that's in the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep asserting that Jclemens was "rude and uncivil" as if it were some kind of fact - when in fact it's only your opinion. A minority one, it seems. As others have said, you do seem to have a unique view on what constitutes a personal attack. The question Jclemens asked of you was simple and straightforward - just deal with it and move on. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You may indeed have relevant outside experience of topics, but I've never seen you make use of any of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we've encountered each other on only one occasion, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2N3055, and you appear to be carrying a grudge over a warning I gave you. Perhaps you're not quite as unbiased as you should be to weigh in on this matter. Msnicki (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall you at two AfDs, in both of which you claimed that IEEE publications weren't acceptable sources. One of these I dragged off to AN/I, and I also had to warn you over your "tick tock!" comments that it if wasn't improved rapidly (something you showed no inclination to do yourself) it would be deleted. The only indication I've seen of your outside knowledge is when you were vocal about deleting a C shell, then admitted that you had a COI involvement with one of the competitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy, this isn't helpful. Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here but the standard level of XfD cattiness. Clemens is becoming more and more like me. :) Tarc (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to let the rest of this proceed without comment (since everyone seems to have gotten the gist of what I was saying anyways), except to note that this statement is probably a much more serious personal attack than the one which prompted this thread. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Given that Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. is one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars Msnicki's personal history isn't really relevant to any discussion. That said, JClemens comment, while off base, doesn't really merit any reaction beyond ignoring it. Gerardw (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• While further comment is obviously unnecessary, I will add my suggestion that the OP take on board the advice offered above. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy where rules are blindly followed and editors operate like automata—it may be worth bearing that in mind when forming opinions. At no point in the reported conversation above did anyone come anywhere near breaching CIVIL, and reporting the case here indicates a need for some self reflection. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Away for a bit and this sort of "incident report" gets made. Unfortuneately, it is a non-incident. Collect (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Treats of bans and failure to AGF

We had discussions at the last Chapters meeting in Berlin regarding biting new comers. Misplaced Pages is complicated even for someone who has made tens of thousands of edits. While trying to address what I considered a legitimate question I received what I consider to be a less than friendly note from User:J Greb. Now we are all here to try to write an encyclopedia. If ANI was not the proper place for me to pose my question I would be happy to be informed off a better place but rolling back my question and threatening to ban me from editing is NOT smart / good for the project. Now if we have admins routinely treating people like this (either old or new) we have a serious problem on our hands ( our falling editor numbers are a concern ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note - the "legitemate question" was over at ANI, and was this. GiantSnowman 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And I agree I posted with insufficient details and to the wrong venue. My point however is it would be nice if people where friendlier. A concern that has been raised before.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, in that note there was no talk of "bans" but there was talk of a "block" - quite a major difference. GiantSnowman 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree re wrong venue etc, but the response from JGreb seems completely over the top to me at first sight. Is there some underlying issue going on here? What's the context?Fainites scribs 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Never interacted with that editor before. Nor User:KFP. My comments have to do with a topic ban seen here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we haven't. And as suggested over on ANI, I'll take a Trout for snapping. Sorry about that Jmh649.

But the underlying issue was solid: starting a policy debate, or an ethics/POV debate, cold on ANI is a non-starter. Fighting to get it is going to be seen as disruptive and eventually blockable to preserve the "smooth" running of ANI. (We've got enough Wiki generated drama there just with the normal level of incidents posted.) If ArbComm wants the issue taken up at ANI regarding a specific case, then the background needs to go up and it needs to be clear what aspect of that case (incident) is being resolved.

- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. As an isolated bad move it would not support a ban, but systemic behavior of this sort would. I'm not sure that User:J Greb is being fair to himself with that trout slap. However, to assume good faith, you must have thought it would lead to a productive discussion. The other way of looking at it, of course, is as classic trolling, throwing out bait to see if you can start a unproductive row. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I guess WP:VP/P may be where this sort of discussion should take place. I am still unsure why what I posted was out of line. The discussion occurred before at ANI . The difficulty was that most of the comments where by sockpuppets/currently banned users. Thus I was trying to clarify consensus as supposedly per here it is that abortion is not part of human sexuality .

I still think this is a legitimate question and assumed it would lead to productive discussion. But the more important issue IMO is why was the initial responses I received there so negative? Being labeled either a troll as per Fred above or accused of soap boxing is not assuming good faith. One would expect that people would provide constructive feedback on admin boards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does make sense in the context of User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#User:DMSBel; perhaps if you had included that context? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do agree that I phrased things poorly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mains electricity by country

• FrederikVds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mains electricity by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do we normally deal with other editors by ultimatum> Do we normally have one author doing the final edit to an article? Signed, Curious.--Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Such behavior is normal, but not optimal, this revert appears to accomplish little in terms of delivering information to readers. There are issues for international travelers, especially for North Americans. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I obviously meant the last revert about this specific issue, not the last edit ever. (Note that I didn't even use the words final edit.) It also wasn't an order or anything, just something I hope. I don't have any authority at all, so it can't even be perceived as an abuse of authority.

The problem: different countries have different standards regarding wall plugs. This article was written from a North-America centric point of view: it specifically stated that North America has "standardised", while the rest of the world differs widely. This is obviously not the case: different regions have different standards, and the North American standard is just one of them. I tried to correct it by taking away the reference to North America, and just leave it saying "vary widely across the world". Note that I don't have any issue with North America appearing on the page! If there was a balanced section about the different standards in different regions, I would more than welcome it. But the way it was now, just seems incorrect to me.

I clearly stated my reasons on the talk page. I specifically challenged a claim that he made earlier on that talk page, that he thinks "it's notable that I can draw a 3000 km radius around my home city and be highly confident that for any hotel I stay at within that radius, my appliances will fit the wall plug". I told him why I think it's not that notable (see the discussion there).

In response, only this ad hominem: "I think it's sweet that the Europeans can all agree on using the same currency and *still* can't agree on a wall plug." And a revert.

I restated the same argument. Now, a more or less to the point response, but containing factual inaccuracies (like "European ... can't travel 1000 km without changing plugs"). That is the only proper response I ever received from him. After my reply, he ignored the main argument, instead picking one detail of something I said, and finding a minor flaw in it. And another ad hominem, bordering on name-calling.

After I restated my original argument, to which he still hadn't responded, yet again (why is 3000 km especially notable, more than 2000 or 4000 km, a large population, a lot of countries, ...), he just ignored my comment and reverted my edit. At that point I could have reverted him back immediately, but instead I gave him what he calls "an ultimatum": give an actual explanation for your edit, or I'll revert it. I obviously respect that he doesn't always have time for Misplaced Pages, but when there's a discussion going on about an edit on the talk page, he shouldn't just change the main article and let other editors wait multiple hours for an explanation for his edit. He should leave the article as it is, and only change it after he had time to explain his reasons.

He eventually responded by reverting the article yet again, and settling the matter by declaring "he has nothing new to say". When I still dared question his judgement, apparently he opened this alert, grossly misrepresenting my actions.

Link to full discussion after my last comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country&oldid=436271572#Standardization

--FrederikVds (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like the sort of dispute that could be avoided if we all remembered some key principles.
  • All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. If there's a reliable source that says that electric plugs in North America are standardised and that the rest of the world isn't, then that assertion can be considered for inclusion. Until then, it's original research or synthesis.
  • Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. Discussions about whether North Americans or Europeans did, could, should or might have the same plugs are not germane to the question of how best to write this specific article.

So I suggest that all parties assess their comments in the light of the five pillars and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I also agree with Sergeant Cribb, but I wish to note that Wtshymanski ends up at these pages far too often. If he's ending up here this often he is doing something wrong, other people are not really the problem, he is creating problems with his edit style. Looking at this, I find it hard to consider that FrederikVds is really making a bad edit, and Wtshymanski is being unwise to revert it, and even if he disagrees, doubly unwise to escalate to the point where it should be at wikiquette. Even if he disagrees it really isn't that important. -Rememberway (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Silvershrek

• Silvershrek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, Silvershrek made an edit with an insulting summary - 'what are you, deaf?', so I warned him with a level-3 warning, noting that he had deleted other warnings from his talk page already. He immediately shot back with an attack against other editors 'another admin with a Napoleon complex' and 'whines about it to an admin, like a baby', so I warned him again, and I investigated. This editor has been increasingly insulting in his edit summaries and interactions with others. 'Look you "knob"' 'wow, you're annoying' 'Cut it out! You crazy idgit!' - can't tell whether this is a joke. While many of this editor's contributions are constructive, he seems to be getting hot under the collar and running afoul of WP:CIVIL these days. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BurgererSF

• BurgererSF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeremias Falck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some days ago User:BurgererSF added some info to the lead section of Jeremias Falck. As per WP:LEAD this section should (only) give an overview of the main article, thus I moved the info to the main body and maid some minor changes. Today BurgererSF returned and undid my changes with a short comment ("rv edits by HerkusMonte - POVpushing, Kulturkampf propaganda see sources!!!" ). I changed it back and explained my reasons at his talk page . He removed my message (as he does regularly any kind of "opposition" e.g. ) and restored "his" version , summarizing his reasons as "Censorship and propaganda of the German Kulturkampf + vandalism, see sources, please discuss your changes". Furthermore he found it necessary to "warn" readers about the article ("ATTENTION!!! SOURCES ON THIS TOPIC PUBLISHED BEFORE 1945, ESPECIALLY IN GERMAN, ARE NOT RELIABLE - LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE GERMAN KULTURKAMPF (GERMANIZATION OF THE POLISH POPULATION").

I don't want to editwar about a simple question of article structure, but BurgererSF's comments ("Kulturkampf propaganda, censorship, vandalism") and "warning" show a strange kind of bad faith and incivility, I think he should be warned to use a proper language and to consider WP:LEAD and WP:AGF. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any comments by BurgererSF directed against HerkusMonte. His concern regarding usage of German Empire's or Nazi Germany sources on Poland(and we have to remember that German Empire was formed by a man openly writing about exterminating Polish people, Nazi Germany is self explanatory) is understandable. It might be done of course without caps lock.I sincerely hope that Herkus Monte doesn't argue for inclusion of German Empire's sources or Nazi ones as reliable source of information regarding Poland.Or any Nazi Germany's sources used in that article or ones from the repressive German Empire?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT:Please don't take MyMoloboaccount's statement as an uninvolved view. We have a long history of more or less productive cooperation, coined by an "opposition in principle" in almost every question. However, I'm talking about BurgererSF "style" not about content (which, in fact, was just moved within the article). HerkusMonte (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's so curious for me, if Jeremias Falck signed his works as Polonus (Pole in Latin), why it cannot be diplayed in the article's lead section, my editions supported by reliable sources and quotes (eg. , ) had been reverted and "censored" (meaning in Latin removed), is it some kind of discrimination? BurgererSF (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with reliable sources used to source articles. Deleting such information isn't encouraged-although I am must say I am not surprised to see it happen, sadly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fessenden oscillator

• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fessenden oscillator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is uncalled for. What is the issue with this user? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is your very long stream of non-constructive edits. In particular a blinkered view that you are some sort of expert on electrical technology, and that if you haven't heard of something, that makes it immediately non-notable.

To quote my post and save some linkage re your merge proposal, "Another crap suggestion by User:Wtshymanski to delete an article because he has never heard of it, and if he can't manage that, to merge it so that it goes away quietly." Now if this merge is so valuable, why did you yourself withdraw it only minutes later?, with a grudging admittance that the thing was indeed covered by sources, as we ask.

This isn't about Fessenden, it's about the totality of your edits and their profoundly unconstructive bias (there's a nice essay page link for that, if anyone remembers it). Go back to the infamous 2N3055 where you were bounced around WQA & ANI by a number of editors. You complain incessantly about articles, you do little to fix the issues (you do some copyedit & anti-vandal stuff for which I'm obviously grateful) but your continual erosion of articles and article content makes a toxic environment for anyone else to work on them.

Ages back, I wrote single-board microcontroller, an article that I thought did a fair job (albeit weak on refs) of explaining the origins of them and mostly how they're distinct from single-board computers. It sat there for ages without controversy, until you did a hatchet job on it. First of all you started querying the small points (again, if you've never heard of it, it didn't happen), such as denying the use of PL/M - it's a version of the big-iron language PL/1 for Microprocessors. Bit of a hint there. Now you've left it as a screwed-up mess that seems to be comparing single-board microcontrollers to microprocessor development boards, which just isn't the issue at all. It's a mess and we'd be better rid of it.

Last week there was an issue with Magneto where it was proposed to rename the primary topic to be a comic book character named after the device, probably because the Magneto article was so poor that no-one really read it. As had been noted on its talk: some years ago, it wanted rewriting entirely and to reflect the structure at Commons (which I did the legwork for, not you) to represent the three main areas that magnetos had been significant for. As it is, the article only discusses one of them (ignition magneto) and doesn't even mention that the other exist. So, because you were nowhere to be seen in fixing this, I started doing it. I from-scratched a new article on Magneto (electrical generator) (their obscure but notable use for high-power generation) so that we could start a clear one main + three subs structure and get a decent encyclopedia out of it all. What did you do? Minutes after I'd finished it, you tagged it for a merge back into the unreadable morass of the existing article. Now there's constructive. There's collegial for you.

There's a comment up this page, applied to the only editor who took your side on the transistor debacle, where their edits are described as you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value. Well to borrow a phrase, I saw that and thought of you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Burglar_alarm#Smoke.2C_heat.2C_CO you're doing it again. You see a section you don't like, so you repeatedly blank it because you've never heard of it, so it doesn't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. You must be under a lot of stress. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty well all of this is, to coin a phrase, un-called for. I can't understand the rationale for the Fessenden oscillator merger proposal, and have just given my reasons at the talk page in question. AD's comment was exasperated and W's comment was not calculated to reduce the stress levels. Cup of tea time all round. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits like and indicate that W is, as he puts it, "under a lot of stress". Proaly he should just ack off somewhat until he has calmed down William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution