This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oicumayberight (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 9 November 2008 (→User:Gnevin twisting policy and enforcing personal taste: spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 identified by various IP numbers (162.84.184.38, 71.247.12.83, 141.155.135.66, etc.)

This same user who does not have a Misplaced Pages account has been asked several times by other editors of the Existentialism and Phenomenology articles to bear in mind Misplaced Pages policy on etiquette. Examples: accusing editors who cite sources of plagiarism and making statements like "there is not a single decent phrase in your proposal"]; comments like "I expect you to continue in bad faith, but hope that you find in your cold hearts...(etc)" ]; and most recently comparing me with "Rain Man", which I suppose is a way of calling me autistic . This is hardly conducive to editing. I am thinking of a RfC on user, but it's going to be hard putting together all the information because the constantly changing IP number means a succession of different User Talk pages. Can anyone help? (I have posted a notification on the Existentialism Talk Page, as the user now has several different user/talk pages corresponding to the different IP numbers.)KD Tries Again (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• It is not true for Verizon changes my IP at will and I use only one at the time; once it is changed, I cannot use it anymore. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that discussion of these issues was taking place at - which you continued to edit after your IP number changed; similar issues with respect to another article on . I could start a topic , but by your own account you might have a different Talk Page tomorrow.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

IP -- I don't think anybody has accused you of intentionally rolling your IP address. But even if it's Verizon doing it, it does make things confusing.

How would you feel about just creating a dummy account for now until we get this mess straightened out? I think it would make things easier on everyone, and you would not be sacrificing anonymity (in fact, since your IPs would be hidden if you registered, by many measures you would be more anonymous..) You don't have to, obviously, but would you consider it just until we straighten out this dispute? What do you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Still in full flood, now . Oh, and at random other places on the Talk Page, e.g. "Please, do not waste out time by arguing boloney." (sic)KD Tries Again (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think that the good faith is being diminished while the anon continues to edit while sidestepping the reasonable suggestions of Jaysweet. If the verbal unpleasantness doesn't stop, the anon might need something of a time-out, so as to reevaluate their behavior. - Arcayne () 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a "timeout" is probably not feasible, given that the IP addresses the user is editing from are all over the map. If the editor continues to agitate to the point where a long-term block is necessary, it looks like it will be a game of IP whack-a-mole. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, it is still ongoing. The IP refuses to get an account, despite my pleas (he/she claims that he/she had an account, but it "expired", which I am pretty sure is impossible, but whatever -- and he/she was allegedly so annoyed by this that he/she refuses to get another one). Strong disagreement remains over the wording of the lede text, and patience appears to be waning all around, resulting in some borderline personal attacks like this one from Der Zeitgeist.

The content dispute itself is too subtle for me... the IP's point appears to be that he/she believes the wording is confusing to "laymen" in philosophy, but others feel that his/her proposed wording is more ambiguous and awkward... I think. Maybe WP:RFC is the way to go here? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably right, because regardless of the merits of the content dispute, the anonymous editor's approach is impeding consensus and forward progress. But...Question: Because the editor refuses to get a User account, will WP:RFC just be a waste of time, as he/she will continue the same behavior from another IP number? KD Tries Again (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I wasn't talking about a user RfC, I was talking about an article RfC, i.e. get more people to comment on Existentialism and hence more eyes on the page once a consensus develops. The nice thing about that is even if you make no progress on the discussion, now there are more people who have the article on their watchlist and can revert any non-consensus changes. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

User:Ibaranoff24

User: Ibaranoff24 has repeatedly made personal attacks against me. He has ordered me to “back off” when I have been adding sourced information into an article because he disagrees with it (here , and here ). He has repeatedly accused me of “pushing POV” (here , here and here ), when all I’m “pushing” is sourced information. He has now accused me of sock-puppetry simply because another user is supporting me (here ). He has also shown agitation and aggression through use of bold, all caps and exclamation marks (as here ) and made statements regarding my edits such as “I refuse to bow down to flakey editors trying to insert bad sources and poor writing into articles in order to dumb down their content.” (), and edit summaries such as "responding to user's arrogance" (). Prophaniti (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a MedCab case was opened here regarding the root dispute between Prophaniti and Ibaranoff24 (content dispute at Hed PE). I am confident that if we can get both parties to discuss the issue politely, all of these problems can be resolved.   23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the dispute i think both editors need to familiarize themselves with the Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. I've never seen such a misuse and misconprehension of policy! This could have easily been dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard. --neon white talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting I have been acting in the same manner as Ibaranoff24 then I would have to assume you haven't been reading the discussion at all, sorry. There really is no comparison.

The medcab resolution is for solving the dispute itself, this is regarding the personal attacks that have arisen throughout, something separate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the dispute is solved everything should calm down. None of the personal attacks are that serious, though the user in question could do with being a bit more patient and stepping away from a dispute if tempers flare etc. --neon white talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the "attacks" are occurring as part of the medcab, they are part and parcel of that activity. BMW(drive) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority are from before the medcab started, a couple are from the start of it, but personal attacks are personal attacks, a medcab project is no excuse. Prophaniti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The MedCab is now closed.   12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the NWQA tag: the medcab is unrelated to non-civil behaviour. Most of the incidents took place before it, and it has been closed because Ibaranoff24 refuses to co-operate with it anyway. As such, could it either be dealt with here, or could someone refer me to where to take the issue if not? Prophaniti (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored here. The issue is not yet resolved: if this genuinely isn't a wikiquette issue, I would like someone to refer me to where I should take it. All that's been said so far is "There's a medcab.". The medcab was not explicitly related, and went no where anyway because Ibaranoff refused to co-operate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the NWQA tag. The simple reason was this: while MedCab was active on the case, there should not have been an additional discussion here. If the behaviour is still continuing, then please provide NEW DIFF's of that activity so that we may move forward. -t BMW c- 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The behavior has ceased in the sense that I have given up for now and left Ibaranoff to his own business for the time being. What I have been looking for since coming here is some kind of warning to the user in question, even an informal one, that his behaviour is unnacceptable. I know this board cannot enforce blocks or anything like that, and that's not what I'm after, just some kind of warning to him that he has been completely ignoring basic rules of etiquette, and my own repeated warnings of such have gone completely unheeded. If this isn't the place for that, then as I say, a redirect to where to take it will do just fine. Prophaniti (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can find templates here --neon white talk 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That said, knowing WHEN and WHEN NOT to template/warn other editors will be key to your career on Misplaced Pages. You truly need to properly understand policy (note above about lack of understandings). You then need to properly understand procedure (opening this WQA while MedCab was open is a good example of what not to do). You then try and resolve issues first before templating/warning. I fail to see any requirement to template the other user at this point. True, he ALSO failed to understand policy, but that requires EDUCATION and not TEMPLATING. Good luck. -t BMW c- 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The medcab was about resolving the content dispute. The report here was about Ibaranoff's unnacceptable behaviour, unrelated to the content of the article itself. The two are unrelated. What I am trying to achieve here is Ibaranoff being warned about his behaviour, because any warnings I myself give will simply be ignored. Just something to show him this is not about some personal vendetta, but about him ignoring wikipedia's most basic of rules. I have, in the past, received a 48 hour block for not breaking a rule, the reasoning being that I was (apparently) not enormously polite. I'm not looking for that much, but it is not right that this user should have not even a basic informal warning for doing so much more. In a nutshell: it's not right that he should be allowed to get away with such behaviour, without a warning he will only continue with it in the future. Prophaniti (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you actually think there's no relation between the MedCab and Civility, you haven't read the ABC concepts on User:Bwilkins. If the uncivilities have stopped following the MedCab, this issue is closed. Go back to your normal editing, and if they arise again, action can be taken. There is no need for any action to be taken at this moment in time, because discussion (and the MedCab) have bene enlightening to all. -t BMW c- 13:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The medcab is very much unrelated, for exactly the reasons I've outlined above. In addition, Ibaranoff refused to co-operate with the medcab anyway. The issue I'm pushing here is not that incivilities are continuing: the fact that they occured needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. Prophaniti (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me reiterate ONE LAST TIME: no incivilities are continuing. In your discussion with the user, you advised them you did not appreciate the comment. You have both grown up a long time since then. No further action will be taken at this time. If the actions restart, please advise. -t BMW c- 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect: as far as incivilities go, it is Ibaranoff who broke the rules, and he has shown no such signs of "growning up". The only reason he hasn't continued is I have taken the time out to do this, and not provide him with further fodder.

So allow me to reiterate one last time: this is not about making the incivilities cease. They have done, because of my own actions. This is about the proper action being taken against a user who knowingly broke rules and has thus far shown no signs of remorse. Prophaniti (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By your own admission, there has no further incivility. You have mentioned your issue with the editor directly. A MedCab occurred. There has been no further incivility. We don't spank the child long after the activity. AS NOTED: return to your original editing patterns. If the incivility RETURNS, immediate action can be taken. Please, stop. -t BMW c- 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I'll bear in mind for future reference that wikipedia policy is that breaking rules is 100% fine, so long as you take a breather every now and then or do it so much that the victim of the rule-breaking gives up from exhaustion. Prophaniti (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Look, nobody said that. Rule-breaking must be dealt with at the time it occurs. You have overexaggerated the actual "incivility". You DEALT with the problem directly with the user, which is how it's supposed to be done. You then had a MedCab that shut this WQA down. Learn the process. I promise that if it happens again, and you advise us in a timely fashion (an don't have other related actions being taken) then it will be dealt with. Being "slightly uncivil" isn't like commiting murder that has no statute of limitations, it's more like your dog peeing on the floor - if you don't deal with them moments after they did it, then all you're doing is torturing the dog for no good reason. -t BMW c- 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it's coming across incorrectly, I'll note this isn't at all an attack on yourself or anything like that. No ill will intended.

But it really does come down to this: a user broke the rules, quite heftily. This is being ignored. Ergo, users are allowed to break the rules. The dog comparison really doesn't work, a dog doesn't think like a human being. A much more apt comparison would be to the 48 hour block I received some time ago. I got this for -not- (yes, -not-) breaking the rules. The justification was "You nearly broke the rules, and you were a teensy bit rude about it too". Now someone has done much worse, and is getting off with nothing at all.

I'd already given up on this particular dispute from exhaustion, for the time being. Now I'll likely just give up on it full stop, if this is how blatant rule-breaking is going to be dealt with. Prophaniti (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been ignored, there's a wikiquette alert and the user was warned and the behaviour stopped. That's a solution. --neon white talk 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you BMW for that. That really is all I've been after all this time: something other than my own warnings to the user (which go ignored) about his behaviour. Thanks once again, I also now consider the matter resolved. Prophaniti (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg L

User accompanies a tirade of false allegations and straw-man arguments with an invitation to me to "pour petrol over yourself, and set yourself alight". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I didn’t invite him to do what he alleged above and he full well knows that. His claims are utterly baseless. He is just wikilayering here. I employed exaggeration to point out that he is making an overly big deal of an issue on which no one else agrees with him.

  This editor is becoming a real pain. He has twice deleted an animation and everyone else has been telling him he should not do so. Please read Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass for context and to gain insight into how this editor is being disruptive. I further ask that this editor be sanctioned for wikilayering and misrepresenting my actions, which constitutes a violation of WP:Civility, which states “ Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.” Greg L (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a concern that the passage may have been represented out of context. Though please be aware that the editor may not have understood the metaphor. Regardless it still could have been dealt with in a better way. Although dealing with troublesome editors is often trying, remembering to stay civil is a must if you want to avoid an escalation. I think a warning about etiquette and working with other editors in a civil manner would suffice at this stage. --neon white talk 11:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I considered the possibility he took my “orange robe” metaphor out of context. But, given…

1. his shot across the bow when starting the whole thing off: “I removed the animated image from this essay; and … intend to do so again”,
2. as well as the way he crafted his arguments (he can hold his own),
3. his quick propensity to slap down others’ writings as “droll”, a “straw man”, and “baseless tirades”, and
4. he was last doing an ANI here on October 27, and the one before that was on the 22nd so he is clearly not “new” to this forum,
5. his experience as an editor: note how far back 500 edits go (not far),

…I concluded that he knew full well what he was doing: he came here to get help with a smack down on the principle road block standing in the way of what he was threatening to do (keep on deleting the animation with impunity). It appears he baits editors with arrogance and his smack downs. Note that I didn’t fall for it. So he seized upon my metaphor that clearly meant “you can go blow this way out of proportion in the proper venue” and came here. Doing so was pure and simple Wikilawyering, which is a big waste of everyone’s time and risks good editors getting a blemish on their record if he lucks out with a knee-jerk reaction from an admin. I truly believe he should get some sort of sanction for this stunt. I detect a dose of “attitude adjustment” is in order. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some assuming of good faith and civility seems necessary ny all parties involved. Also, arguing over a short essay of no consequence? Seriously? Check your priorities. --neon white talk 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy does not require me to AGF in the face of evidence, such as that I cited above, to the contrary. Nor have I been uncivil. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, you started the incivility with your baseless tirade remark. Now, I have read through the discussion twice and it appears to me that Greg L exhibited a great deal of patience with you before making the comment you complained about. —Travis 23:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The uncivil tirade to which that response was given was "you can now wade in and delete them all because you don’t like them and also because you have now found some organization to cite that recommends the practice. ... In the mean time, don’t start whittling away, bit by bit on Misplaced Pages’s content. ... Sufferers of epilepsy don’t need patronizing paternalism by you or me or anyone else." and it was, indeed, baseless. Perhaps you would now like to address the petrol comment, cited above? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that was incivil or a lack of good faith. It was helpful advice. The fact that you began a discussion stating your intention to disrupt the article with an edit war - "I removed the animated image from this essay; and, having been reverted, intend to do so again" - leaves very little room for good faith on the part of other editors. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, this means you should use the talk page to discuss edits and gain consensus, it's not a place to declare unilateral action. --neon white talk 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing a harmful image with a clear explanation of why an editor is doing doso is not an "intention to disrupt the article with an edit war" and describing my motive as some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is both uncivil and a failure to AGF. My post on the talk page was an attempt to gain consensus; and my removal of the image in the interim was, as explained, to remove something harmful. Perhaps you would now like to address the petrol comment, cited above? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the image is 'harmful' is your own only and consensus must be gained. I have quoted your comment from the talk page accurately and i think it is clear that you declared an intention to ignore consensus and edit war. "I removed the animated image from this essay; and, having been reverted, intend to do so again" is not an attempt at gaining a consensus on any planet. As has been pointed out many times, representing phrase out of context is not good etiquette. --neon white talk 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's address it. There is no doubt whatsoever that the "petrol" comment has been unreasonably taken out of context - and no, in the post that it's in, it is not uncivil (although Greg could've possibly, to avoid this atrocious complaint, made a different choice of words). I will also note that it is remarkably futile to expect other editors at this venue to look at a couple of sentences in isolation - that's not how we work here, and if that's how you go about reading posts, then there's clearly a big problem with your editing. I dismiss the complaint as frivolous.

Greg (among others) seems to have shown a remarkable sense of patience when attempting to discuss this with you, despite your inappropriate comments like "baseless tirade". He, as well as Travis and L'Aquatique, have found that you were beating a dead horse, and I happen to agree - you need to stop because you are showing all signs of being a tendentious editor. That sort of disruption usually ends up with a ban, and given your track record and block log, that wouldn't be out of the question. I urge you to drop it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, instead of the petrol comment, perhaps Greg could suggest that the other editor dress up as Spiderman and climb the Reichstag. That should eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User placing many protection templates on his own talk page

User Blueking12 placed a bunch of misleading protection templates all over his own talk page, and user Xenocidic removed it. Bluekink came back, and reverted his revert. I reverted his revert, and placed a small note on his talk page. The user then placed a warning on my talk page, removed my comment, and edited his own page a couple dozen times(?), then placed another protection template on the top of his page along with my name, which I reverted again.

Here's the user's diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Blueking12&diff=cur&oldid=246826721 And here's the template he added after I reverted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Blueking12&oldid=249737663

Check the page history for all the other confusing edits.

Because it is the user's own talk page, should I have allowed him/her to place protection templates there? Or are the strictly for use only on actual protected page? — ThreeDee912(/_contribs) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't mean anything so it's largely pointless. However the second looks like a personal attack to me. --neon white talk 01:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The template that calls out ThreeDee is indeed a personal attack and is right out. He has since removed it, though, so hopefully that will be the end of it.

As to the question of misleading semi-protection templates, my feeling is that's probably not okay either. Contrary to popular belief, one can't put whatever one wants on a talk page, and the semi-protection template seems to be misleading.

I suspect maybe Blueking12 was confused about the meaning... maybe he didn't want new users editing his talk page, so he thought the template saying they were "prohibited" was merely a notice that they shouldn't, as opposed to explanatory text to accompany a mechanical prohibition? I dunno, anyway, as long as the templates don't come back, it's resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is correct that you cannot put anything on a talk page, anything offensive should be removed, however i cannot find anything that specifically says that you cannot have misleading templates. Maybe the correct use of protection templates needs addressing elsewhere. --neon white talk 00:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Anlinguist, incivility and impersonation

User:Anlinguist has recently made several edits to Talk:Anal–oral sex that I would characterize as being incivil or disruptive (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4).

Recently, the user has taken to impersonating other editors with which he has disagreements (diff--the other user is User:Nightmareishere who also posts as User:98.220.43.195). This would seem to be a breach of Wikiquette, and I seek your help. superluser_tc 2008 November 07, 06:01 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it looks like the impersonation was a confusing attempt at citation. I withdraw that aspect of the complaint, but I'll leave this open. superluser_tc 2008 November 07, 06:10 (UTC)

Seems spamish but how are they disuptive? the user has never even edited the article and hasn't made any edit for 3 days, i suggest you let this one go and if there is further deabte consider using dispute resolution. --neon white talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TCO

See the last new topic on Talk:Michelle Malkin. I don't think anyone needs to put up with that kind of thing just for having an opinion. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs or be more specific. Bearing in mind that the last topic on a talk page may change. --neon white talk 13:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious. It's the same one as last night and it's the only one with swearing in it(). Maybe I should have just posted this on the admin notice board. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fennessy: please have a little patience, and WP:AGF. This is the correct location for your complaint. You were asked a basic question as you failed to follow the procedure for this page. By the time someone looked into your issue, many additional discussions may have taken place on that page. Thank you for providing the diff. You also missed another key point: you are to advise the other party of this WQA entry. Offending user has been warned for personal attacks. -t BMW c- 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, all I wanted was him to be cautioned. Job done. ʄ!•¿talk? 16:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan

On the WebKit page this user, with neither a link to the project nor an understanding of it, has a clear agenda to keep certain contributors (or non-contributors) listed as such, while denying others. His own criteria for inclusion fails for some of the ones he protects, and he refuses to listen to long-term members of the WebKit project with official status in the project (committer, reviewer, known long-time contributor). His personal page indicates that he has had such issues in the past with other pages as well. He should be removed as "editor" of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.207.134 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan sought a third opinion over attempts by an IP editor to repeatedly insert claims into the article WebKit; I offered the opinion that such claims were OK only if supported by valid references. At the time, no such references were forthcoming; however, an Apple developer has now offered to provide a reference. A number of editors - including AlistairMcMillan - regard this as a satisfactory resolution. Under the circumstances I do not believe AlistairMcMillan has "a clear agenda", and I would add that his "own" criteria for inclusion appear to be entirely consistent with Misplaced Pages policies.

AlistairMcMillan does not appear to have been informed of this issue; I will take the liberty of informing him now.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 01:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just would like to point out that it is difficult for me to "refuses to listen to long-term members" when they post anonymously and never identify themselves. And yes I "had such issues in the past with other pages as well". I tend not to support people who are determined to have their company/product inserted into articles without reliable sources to back them up. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gnevin twisting policy and enforcing personal taste

User:Gnevin appears to be enforcing personal taste and twisting wikipedia policy to back it. He's removing illustrations of a subject with the accusation that they are meaningless decorations despite the evidence that the same icons have meaning in other languages: . This user has no justification for removing illustrations other than the opinion that they are childish. That's a matter of personal taste, not wikipedia policy. It's twisting a policy that is mostly about the use of territorial flags instead of generic symbols to back the user's opinion. The user is calling images that are used as examples "decorations" simply because the user doesn't see how they are examples of the subject matter of the article, despite evidence that many foreign language translations use the same images. And the user has yet to explain in graphic design terms what is childish about the illustrations. The user obviously has a problem with illustrations that have any style applied to them regardless of any addition communicative value. I've compromised with the user in the design article, but now the user is overreaching and on some sort of power trip. Discussions seem to be one way. The user is not disputing but instead forcing an opinion with reverts. The user is ignoring the consensus reached here: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#What is fair icon and symbol use? that the images can be replaced with photos as long as the photos are just as effective. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

More WP:FORUMSHOPing? Your hardly assuming WP:AGF are you now? At the end of the day WP:CON is for removing these. Your the only user I see pushing for them to be included Gnevin (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We are beyond the point were assumptions of good faith need to be made. Your impatience and hostile actions are the evidence. You've shown your personal taste by calling the images "childish." And your consensus is weak at best. Everyone else has expressed concerns of a different nature that were all addressed. Your the only user who is pushing for removal on the grounds of personal taste. Anyone else who's debated the use of icons has been more willing to listen to reason and compromise. You've ignored the compromise on the design page where an opposing user agreed to keep some of them with a little rearranging. And now your ignoring the compromise on the multimedia page were another user agreed to replace icons with photos, not to simply remove them. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Their is no WP:CON to replace the images just to remove them. You suggested on design and MOSICON. In both case no one agreed to it . On design the con was for removal which happened ,you just added images after that happened. On MOSICON no has agreed to your suggestion . We are never beyond the point of Assuming good faith . And your consensus is weak at best at least i have a consensus.Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus on removing the images because they are quote "childish". The only consensus you have is from those who tried to prove a negative. 2 of those 4 users have compromised. In the design article User:Necz0r expressed a different concern with the icons here, and compromised with an edit keeping the icons here. Regarding the multimedia article, User:Andrwsc agreed that replacement was better than removal in this discussion. The only other so-called consensus you have are the users who admit to failing to see the meaning or the relevance to the subject matter of the article, which IMO is more of a confession of their lack of pictorial literacy than a grounds for removing content. It's inconsiderate of the readers and editors who do see meaning (that transcends language as shown by all the links above) and have had no reason to complain for the last 2 years. I'd say that the global reuse of the same icons for the same reason is my global strong consensus that they are effective in communicating. What are you going to do next, remove the icons from those 16 other foreign translations? Obviously most of those people aren't going to need to revisit the article and are unlikely to know that what worked for them is being challenged as if it hasn't worked for anyone at all. So where is the rest of your so-called consensus? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikiquette alerts are not a place to continue discussing content disputes. Post once and let editor's respond. Ther differences above are just article snapshots where is the evidence of incivility? This seems to be clearly a content dispute and doesnt belong here. Follow the steps at dispute resolution and remember to assume good faith and that wikipedia is not a battleground --neon white talk 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing my edits as "childish", and removing content based on personal taste isn't very civil IMO. I've taken steps to get expert opinions to resolve the dispute over content and was accused of forum shopping here. That's why I brought the dispute here. This user could be much more patient in getting resolution over content IMO. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence of personal attacks or incivility. Article editing isn't a civility issue it's a content dispute (see Misplaced Pages:Etiquette). This page is for etiquette issues only not for resolving disputes. --neon white talk 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice: "Wiki is a serious encyclopaedia not a children's book" Talk:Design#Article Icons
2. Feigned incomprehension, playing dumb: "With out the link below them the icons are useless as they could convey a 1000 different means" Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#What is fair icon and symbol use?
3. More Belittling:"Not to mention how childish and unprofessional they look" Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#What is fair icon and symbol use?

I know that I haven't been as civil as I should have been either, and I'm sorry. But at the risk of being accused as childish again, I have to say "he started it." Oicumayberight (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless the editor is calling another editor childish then that isnt a personal attack, whilst respecting other editor's contributions is civil it is not required that every contribution is met in a positive manner. It's simply not clear enough that the comments were intended to be derogatory and not valid concerns about the style of the images. --neon white talk 12:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here we have another problem. You say that it may be a valid concern about the style of the images. But when I go to a forum where I'm most likely to find a qualified opinion about the style of the images, I'm accused of forum shopping. That's not assuming good faith. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are currently discussing this here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Icons_on_wikipedia,Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology,Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection,Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#What_is_fair_icon_and_symbol_use.3F and Talk:Multimedia . While so possibly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Graphic_design andDesign. Visual arts and Graphic design where inform in a non neutral way. Anyway I'm tired of this build a consensus for re-adding the icons and don't do so till you have achieved such consensus Gnevin (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule against asking for multiple opinions on a topic, unless this is being done in an underhand manner or blatent canvassing then you need to assume good faith on this point. --neon white talk 18:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Icons_on_wikipedia and Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion . use of visual communication with symbols and icons on wikipedia is under attack and I could use a little help defending them here are far from neutral Gnevin (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)" Gnevin (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"I removed the images and they should not return.""build a consensus for re-adding the icons and don't do so till you have achieved such consensus." Now we can add taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility. This is about you, not the icons. Your bossy tone here isn't making you look any more civil. And you commanding me not to re-add the icons is clear harassment. Besides, I already have my international consensus. I usually am civil until people are uncivil with me.

You have yet to tell me why you think the icons are childish in professional terms. Maybe you don't know any professional terms. All I've heard was knee jerk reactions from personal taste using belittling tones. Maybe you aren't even part of the profession. I've searched the edit history of both of those pages, and couldn't find your user name making any positive contributions to either. It's just removal and reverts. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Matt Deres

This user violated WP:NPA in this comment. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended he remove it. I don't see it as a true violation of WP:NPA. The comment is usually reserved for use in specific common situations when people have been ignoring past results as society moves towards the future. "Moon colonies" are, after all, highly discussed in scientific fields. You also have failed to advise them of this WQA entry. -t BMW c- 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8

This user blankly reverted all my changes, that I, with some effort, had put into the Chris Pronger and National Hockey League rivalries articles. Among my changes were bypassing some redirects, unlinking dates, and merging identical references. His position - right or wrong - was that "August 3, ]" would be an appropriate link that should be kept. (And for that reason he reverted all my changes blankly.) My position - right or wrong - is that a calendar date obviously refers to a calendar year, not a season or a draft. Maybe this isn't the right place to resolve this dispute.

But what I object to is that he reverted all my changes, instead of - as I suggested on his talkpage - posting a (reasonably) polite message on my talkpage, explaining what he didn't feel was correct. An alternative would be that he himself re-add the specific changes that he didn't agree on. Instead he described my edits as "mistakes" and "unconstructive", and labeled me a "mindless busybody".

LarRan (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks? and notify the user of this alert as required. --neon white talk 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is his first revert of my edit to the "Chris Pronger" article: . He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, but his revert has now been reverted by Orlandkurtenbach, and that version is the current one at present.

This is his first revert of my edit to the "National Hockey League rivalries" article: . He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, and that version is the current one at present, since I don't want to engage in edit warring.

The invectives can be found on my talkpage, "Unlinking dates" section, second part. Here's the edit that added them:

I have notified him now. Missed that.

LarRan (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I have not looked at the diff's related to article content: we cannot deal with that here, only incivility. I've read the entire page that you linked to related to incivility, and I have significant trouble finding what you call "invectives". The edit that you kindly provided the diff for includes the phrases "please don't engage in mindless busybodyism and ignore the details. It's up to you to go that extra mile and make the constructive change". Based on your response, I believe that this is the portion you're concerned about. Truly, this is borderline: he didn't call you "a mindless busybody", he suggestion you don't engage in "mindless busybodyism". In fact, he then went on to suggest what would make your editing better. Feel free to correct me or enhance my understanding. -t BMW c- 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think it is useful, and would add to the article, to include a link to the seasons in the Chris Pronger article, the fact that they are dates does not make it absolutely necessary. This is why I have decided not to revert on that article again. However, the National Hockey League rivalries article uses season links to establish greater context, and should not be removed. I'm glad that LarRan has not reverted me there, and I would ask him to agree to keep the season links in that article. I don't think it should be up to me to fix the problems caused by his edits. Why did I choose to revert all his changes? As I said, I do not think I should have been the one to fix the problems caused by his changes, because I had other articles to get to in my watchlist, and because his other changes were negligible, as the targets redirect to the articles. Redirects are something I'm anal about, but in this particular case I don't think either version would be a substantial improvement for the article, and him removing the season links diminishes the quality of the article. Since he is making the changes, he should make them good changes, not drive by script-type. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have an obligation to at least keep or reinsert useful edits. If it was worth your time to visit and full-revert, it's worth your time to do a little help to the article. -t BMW c- 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, that wikiquette alerts are not the place to continue a content dispute, do so on the relevant talk page. --neon white talk 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User Flyer22 seems to be attempting to prejudice an Afd

I am requesting the assitance of a third party to mediate on the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article for deletion nomination here. I believe the user Flyer22 is trying to influence the outcome of the vote by using Proof by assertion and thus being in contravention of Wikiquette as outlined here. Everytime an editor makes a argument for deleting the article, Flyer22 writes paragraphs and paragraphs of reasons why the article should not be deleted, simply reiterating her viewpoint over and over again. I believe her copious comments are neither helpful or justified, and are not allowing a fair or truthful deletion procedure. I have voted for this article to be DELETED, but all I want is a fair procedure. I do not want this article to be deleted or kept simply because of Flyer22's excessive proof by assertion. Paul75 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin will review the afd and base a decision on valid points relating to relevent policies. Invalid points, no matter how loud or repetative will have no effect on the outcome. That said some of the comments bordered on personal attacks so i have posted a warning about staying on topic and not commenting on other editors. --neon white talk 00:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance neon white. I am always a little unclear about what constitutes acceptable behaviour in an AfD, so your input is much appreciated! Paul75 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Info about that can be found at WP:AFD#AfD Wikietiquette and WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD --neon white talk 12:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm

User Miranda has accused me of "spamming" because I have been adding legitimate references to the published work of author/journalist Kira Salak over the last weeks. As I have explained to her, I am adding references to works that I have read, and I have begun with the author Kira Salak. I am not "spamming" this author, I am simply adding references to Misplaced Pages from Salak's large resource of articles published in National Geographic and in her two books. To my knowledge, the user Miranda has not read any of the articles or books, and so has no knowledge as to whether they are legitimate or not. It would appear that she has arbitrarily decided they are not relevant and is removing them. As I explained to Miranda, these articles and references meet the critera for references according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. I had intended to move on and not go to the trouble of arbitrating, but then I saw that she added a comment into the Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Spamming books on Mali and other African countries) section accusing me of "spamming". I have tried every way I could to resolve this without involving administrators, but she simply refuses to stop. She has put me in a position where I can no longer add useful content to Misplaced Pages as she will remove it. She has also added inappropriate tags into the Kira Salak page (see discussion page for more details). She has removed entries of mine from Mali, Tripoli ‎, Leptis Magna, Huichol, Real de Catorce. She has also removed an entry that I made for West Africa when I forgot to login under IPaddress 69.202.73.21. Could you please review the references that I added, that Miranda has removed, and give a third party opinion as to their relevance. Thank you. JakeSturm (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You should first read instructions for pages before posting. Several points listed at #Procedure for this page were not met, including informing Miranda of this post. Regardless, she's not randomly removing legitimate references. You have not provided references. Please see WP:CITE as well as WP:RS. By our project standards, you are spamming. Miranda explained this to you. If you have questions about using references, feel free to ask on my talk page, but Miranda has not shown poor Wikiquette here. لennavecia 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is 'spamming', spamming is done in bad faith and to accuse an editor of such is not assuming good faith. The edits by JakeSturm are clearly good faith edits that need to be sourced. Both editors need to use the talk page to discuss content disputes and to assume good faith. User:Miranda needs to be more patient, be open to compromise and help new editors rather than 'biting' them. --neon white talk 18:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg L incivil

The latest post by user User:Greg L at Talk:Mandelbrot set#Animation is inappropriate and disruptive to any discussion of the text associated with an animation (itself good) that he has made. He has been asked to chill. Please take a look at this and give guidance. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you egg him on, then seem surprised that he got a little upset? He hasn't even been uncivil towards anyone in particular ... there's no violation of WP:NPA that I can see - in fact, your previous post to the diff you provided was rather provocative, and more along the lines of WP:NPA. He responded in a snarky manner to your snarkiness. Perhaps you need to take a few steps back and see cause/effect. -t BMW c- 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution