Misplaced Pages

:Wikiquette assistance - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 10:34, 31 May 2012 (→False accusations of vandalism and unwillingness to colloborate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:34, 31 May 2012 by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) (→False accusations of vandalism and unwillingness to colloborate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    Active discussions

    User:Arcandam & User:Dan56

    • I guess our respective talk pages, better explained below.

    User:Arcandam keeps harrassing my talk page with warnings misconstruing every edit I make. He's done it a couple of times before (history). I think it started with this warning template I used to him after he made unexplained, unconstructive changes to the article that we were discussing. We've been in discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hip pop, where he responded to the previous with "editsummaries suck", and he's been pretty hostile to me there. I've tried to make nice and be humble at his talk page and the discussion page, so the discussion is about the content and not our character, but he's responded with accusations, calling me ignorant about the topic of the articles I edit, and does not assume good faith because I disagree with him on certain content. I'm clearly on his bad side. One of his main accusations is that I canvassed, b/c I asked editors of music-related articles to comment on a music-related discussion, and I primarily edit those kind of articles. He uses this to undermine any logical argument I make. Both at his talk page and the discussion page, he's threatened to follow the edits I make, so isnt that sort of uncivil or wrong? He is not considering anything I say, so I'm done trying his talk page. Can you please help? He seems to respond better to others who havent debated him yet. Dan56 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

    LOL. As I've told you before, there is a log of every edit we've made. And boomerang's hurt. But since I agree you are at the right page here, you do need some Wikiquette assistance, here we go:
    We've met because I dared to change the genre "hip hop" to the subgenre "hip pop" (which is also known as "pop rap") on Kanye West. If I would've known what a minefield full of WP:GENREWARRIORS the genre-line in infoboxes is I would've never bothered specifying the correct genre. You disagreed with my edit, and reverted with the editsummary: "Rv; dubious changes". So I added a reliable source as a reference and I posted a message on your talkpage. I am not a native speaker, so it takes more edits for me to post a message that is comprehensible and free of typo's than for some other editors. You deleted my message on your talkpage without even responding to it with the editsummary: "Rm, dubious post (took 5 edits?)". Then you stalked me to hip pop (a genre you previously weren't even aware existed), and nominated hip pop and Indie hip hop out of revenge because you think I prefer Indie hip hop.
    A couple of Dan56 quotes from our conversations:
    • Rv; this isn't the forum for that. Options are delete or keep. (editsummary used while deleting my comment from the AfD discussion)
    • Wait, but what would a foreigner know about American music anyway.
    • It is quite obvious you're losing your mind. Nota bene: When another editor said "there's no need for this" he responded with "Well he must be."
    • Let's agree to disagree on that article, but don't question my knowledge on any music, let alone hip hop.
    • You can learn something from me about hip hop.
    • Not only I am involved in my local scene in New York, I took a class on hip hop in college and know plenty from using GoogleBooks to research hip hop history and culture.
    • R U being a sore loser?
    • I've written and edited plenty of hip hop articles on WP, so please don't question my judgement here.
    • He has added the header "diversion" above my comments.
    • When deleting user warning templates he likes to use the phrase "takin(sic) out the trash" (Apparently this is what he considers to be "nice and be humble"...)
    This is not limited to me, some recent Dan56 quotes about other people:
    • Can you help knock some sense into him?
    • And who are you to call me a control freak?
    Dan56 may think he is an expert on hip hop but he wrote: "There's no name for it, like there's not "hip pop", or "pop rap". It's not a legit/accepted term.". I showed him some of the many sources. To make the Randy in Boise situation with Dan56 & Secret clear I even posted a list of some quotes from hip hop songs about pop rap/hip pop, e.g. this one. I showed the fact the terms are frequently in use 123456, 8000 potential sources on Google Books alone, if I search for "hippop" on Google (including quotes!) I get about half a million results. If I search for "hip pop" I get well over 4 million. If I search for "pop rap" I get 5 1/4th million and if I search for "poprap" I get 80k more.. AllMusic has an article about it. If he was an expert on hiphop he would've been aware of the existence of this subgenre.
    I asked him if he had read WP:CANVASS (at that point his latest edit was this request for support in an AfD) and he said he had on 20 May at 03:44. Since then he has made these edits (among others): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    A selection of his edits from between 19 May 2012 02:24 and 20 May at 03:42 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    Two editors agree his choice of audience was "questionable" because it consists of inactive users who may disagree and people he knows and likes. (because they have a similar interest)
    He even removed some of the requests for support because he felt they were not needed anymore (which prevented the risk that those editors disagreed with him). 1 2.
    Some more canvassing. He even canvassed for this very WQA.
    Dan56 is one of those intentionally annoying people who give you a nickname and use it even after you repeatedly ask him not to. In my case he tried to troll by using 'bro'. I told him I am not his 'bro' and asked him to stop a number of times but he continued. It backfired, because it gave me the right to call him 'sis'. Doing that just once has been effective so far; he hasn't called me 'bro' since. Arcandam (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. To be continued...
    • The blind are leading the blind. This template runs counter to the suggestion that we don't template the regulars. Then things got worse, with barbs back and forth, and as far as I'm concerned this patronizing comment is all I need to see that dickishness comes from both sides here. Oh, if "bro" is trolling, then so is "dude." I think both of you need to take a break from each other. An interaction ban is a bit far-fetched, but it would be wise for the both of you to refrain from interacting. If you comment on the same AfD or article talk page, don't comment on each other's comments--that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I never claimed to be Ghandi (a great example of the blind leading the blind by the way). Templating the regulars is unimportant; that template runs counter to the suggestion that we use templates in cases where they are applicable. I hope Dan56 stops trying to follow me around. I do not understand that sentence about "dude" BTW. Arcandam (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • What's not to understand? You're complaining that he trolled you by calling you 'bro', and I don't see why that's trolling when "dude" isn't. But you also referred to their notification of this thread as "trolling", so I don't think you know what trolling is. What I do know is that this and this are not examples of canvassing. In the one, he leaves a note about reliable sources on an AfD, in another he updates a question he asked by saying that he started a thread about the problem. That's not canvassing. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of Dan56's edits, it takes two to tango. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    I think this may be a cultural difference or a generational gap or something similar, but calling a 20yr old male 'dude' once is not comparable to calling someone 'bro' after being repeatedly asked not to. Do you think Dude, Where's My Car? contains more swearing than the Southpark episode "It Hits The Fan" (S5E2)? Did I insult myself here? Arcandam (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. I did not refer to the notification of this thread as trolling, I referred to the person who notified me as a troll.
    But it's quite consistent with the suggestion we do template the regulars. Beyond that, concur. Nobody Ent 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

    Attempt to discredit using sexual orientation as a weapon

    This editor, Hypesmasher, has chosen to pick up userboxes from my user page and use them here as an attempt to discredit me. I have no idea whether the editor is homophobic, but it appears very much to be a homophobic attack. In such things the perception of the victim is of substantial importance. To pre-empt any criticism of my strong prior suggestion that he had had his fun, I accept that they perhaps should have been different in tone. Nonetheless that is no excuse for what I perceive as a homophobic attack.

    I have read WP:COAL and am adhering to it. I judged that any attempt by me to seek to solve this by civil talk page messages would be unproductive, so I have no intention of interacting with this editor again, save to post the alerting template in their talk page. I rarely edit the article in question, and then usually simply to patrol it to delete uncited new 'facts'. I have not contributed to further discussions or edits in either location since this incident, and have chosen to wait until the matter was archived at DRN in order to allow time for any passions to cool. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

    Lack of response leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the behaviour is expected, unexceptional, and not to be criticised. How disheartening. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    I see nothing to contradict my view. Publicly expressed bias based upon sexuality is obviously acceptable. Currently consensus has been to avoid this topic. Thus it is allowed. Nemine contradicet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Can you show a diff or at least quote the text rather than having people wade through the lengthy dispute resolution (that's probably why noone responded). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Quoted from the archived DRN:

    Lastly, editor Fiddle Faddle (who has suggested this change of venue) lists (among other things) on his Userpage...

    This user is proudly out of the closet and gay. This user is a supporter of the LGBT community. This user supports equal rights for LGBT people.

    These disclosures make me suspicious of Fiddle Faddle's true motives for interfering here and suggesting this disruptive venue change. I suggest that Fiddle Faddle perhaps has a conflict of interest which should disallow him or her from even nominating the AfD for this specific article at this specific point in time.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks for the tip, and for responding with it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    I will limit my comments on this and then withdraw, because my past interactions with Hypesmasher have not been productive. That being said, I cannot remain silent on this issue. In my opinion, Hypesmasher's comments quoted above are completely out of line. To imply that someone should not edit certain Misplaced Pages pages simply because his user page says "this user is proudly out of the closet and gay" and "this user supports equal rights for LGBT people" is a clear violation of WP:NOEDIT. The problem is that one incident of this kind does not rise to the level of requiring a block, and Hypesmasher has repeatedly shown himself to be oppositional and defiant in the face of any suggestion that he modify his behavior in any way. This can clearly be seen by my failed attempts to convince Hypesmasher that you cannot nominate an article for deletion on that article's talk page and by SineBot's repeated attempts to convince Hypesmasher to sign his posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of his comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you for those thoughts. I do not see this as block material either, and I saw all your attempts to interact with the user came to naught. My hopes in raising the matter here are that hitherto uninvolved editors attempt to guide this user away from the combative route and into the collegiate fold. And that as a matter of some importance he is told that what I perceive to be rampant homophobia has no place here. Further transgressions shoudl be discussed elsewhere and may result in a block, but that is not my concern. I am concerned that he is now advised strongly that his behaviour towards me has been sufficiently out of line to be in breach of our policies here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    Accusations of meat puppetry and tendentious editing


    After removing much of the original research and undue material in the Becker article: , Olavn characterized my edits as: "dismantling and annihilation" to another editor: User_talk:Saedon#The_Body_Electric.

    After I reverted his addition of the undue material , I then posted on WP:FTN about the recent additions of undue material and OR: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Robert_O._Becker. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

    Olavn also added an excessively large list of papers which he added: which i then cut in half due to the extreme size: .

    Olavn has now characterized my actions as meat puppetry and disruptive editing (note I had already explained on the Becker talk page that large lists of research papers do not help with establishing notability: Talk:Robert_O._Becker#Nobel_Prize_Nominations). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

    Annihilation refers to the way IRWolfie demolished The Body Electric - behaving like the building inspector in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (The text there was mainly a synopsis of the book The Body Electric. What he calls Original research was simply to look up in the PubMed index how many times the author had been referred to.)

    Disruptive editing refers (in addition to the abovementioned annihilation) to how my attempts at including a decription of Becker's research in Robert O. Becker is consistently reverted/deleted by IRWolfie- - without even a proper explanation. (The demolishing building inspector again. How many peer-reviewed papers to list is less important - except when Beckers notability is questioned.) And he tagged the remaining short research description with "Undue weight" without explaining.

    Meat-puppetry refers to his posting as described here. OlavN (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

    We have a number notice-boards, talk pages of Wikiprojects, etc where people post asking for help. To call this meat-puppetry is not at all helpful, nor is calling another editor (IRWolfie) a 'deletionist'. You've compounded this be accusing him of disruptive editing. Have you read WP:AGF? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    The editor appears to be trying to sidestep consensus by inserting puffery (or boasting as he calls it here ): in the lede here The_Body_Electric_(book) that was discussed and deleted from the main Becker article, for example the clear original research in the line The book was quoted 440 times by other papers on Google scholar (April 2012). The editor has also tried to avoid dealing with the lack of sourcing that made The_Body_Electric it into a redirect in the first place by recreating the article and not mentioning it to anyone. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    I notice also that the administrator DGG has already explained to OlavN that we do not include all his papers but only the most important User_talk:DGG#A_problematic_article, yet OlavN used my trimming of the list in his accusation that I was disruptively editing . IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    After DGG gave me this advice, I shortened the list of referred papers. (But now and then, when Becker's notability is challenged, the large number of peer-reviewed papers must be shown.) Properly editing this list implies keeping the important ones, like those in Nature and Science. But IRWolfie's "editing" was simply text slashing, keeping only the first 13 or so from the 33, and omitting 3 Nature articles.
    The important reason for using the word deletionist is the recurring deletions I mention under Disruptive editing above. The proper way to point out lacking sources etc. is to explain in Talk what is missing, not to demolish everything (like in The Body Electric) or to delete science description (like in Robert O. Becker).
    It is a regrettable fact of life that puffery must be included in the lead section - for demonstrating notability. Telling how much the book is quoted in Google Scholar, is part of this notability demonstration, and not (original) research in this research description. OlavN (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Have you read WP:AGF? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    A sentence such as "His main book The Body Electric was quoted 435 times by other papers on Google scholar (May 2012)" does not belong in the article and is indeed original research - if you don't believe me, ask at WP:NORN. Puffery has no place in an article unless it is part of a discussion of puffery in reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I have read WP:AGF and assumed good faith, as I stated in my first complaint - many unexplained deletions ago. What we call puffery is actually important information, and demonstrations of notability (which deletionists need to get rid of).
    But you have evidently not read the book you are "editing" about, or you would have known what is meant with negative/positive polarity. This is relative to other parts of the body, and the strong gradients near an electrode are physically and physiologically different for negative and positive electrodes. OlavN (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

    WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is an essay, meaning it's just one or more editor's policy, not something that has community consenus. I'm not seeing evidence of incivility on IRWolfie's part; other the other hand calling a post to a noticeboard meatpuppetry isn't appropriate. Nobody Ent 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

    User:Bryonmorrigan being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect

    The user Bryonmorrigan is using uncivil language and combative behaviour towards the user Collect because of disagreements between them. Bryonmorrigan said to Collect "Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"???" This is uncivil and combative behaviour that is not constructive. Criticism of Collect's arguments could have been done through constructive criticism rather than this derogatory uncivil and combative way. Bryonmorrigan needs to cease this uncivil language and combative behaviour. Also I believe that both Bryonmorrigan and Collect need to engage in more constructive discussions, pointing out mistakes in each others arguments through reference to reliable sources (and not their personal opinion), and if they cannot find an agreement between each other, they should seek Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion or a Request for Comment through proper channels on Misplaced Pages.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    I am not directly involved in their argument, but I saw the post by Bryonmorrigan and found it unacceptably uncivil and combative.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    I would note that the BryoMn has had similar posts about other editors, and seems not to understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and that "lively discourse" need not include personal attacks.

    Seriously, dude. Grow up and read a book or two. Every single reputable source on the planet...even the KKK itself...describes the KKK as Far Right. Nobody is buying your uneducated, unsourced, patently absurd, and utterly childish nonsense.

    Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills.

    that will not be changed simply to make articles fit in with your distorted weltanschauung

    That's a profoundly un-encyclopedic view...and would have Neo-Nazis "in charge" of the pages on Nazism

    Your OPINION is neither consistent with reality, nor backed up by the reliable sources, both of which prove otherwise. Social Conservatism, whether promoted by Rick Santorum or Osama bin Laden, is pretty much the very DEFINITION of "Authoritarianism."

    You can no more "decide" that Breivik is not a "true" Christian than you can state that Fred Phelps isn't one either. You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom. He is as much a "Christian" as any other Christian


    Show clearly the methodology of BryonM's posts towards a host of editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, the same arguments could be made but with less edge, for example, could have been stated instead by pointing to something along the lines of what the essay WP:EXPERT states. Having a valid point isn't an excuse to be uncivil. I don't think this is uncivil: IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    YMMV - but saying "You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom" seems to me to be a direct comment on an editor, and not a comment based on anything else (like actual article content). Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    Yes it was unnecessary to say. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    The issue is what are Bryonmorrigan and Collect going to do to prevent this kind of situation from coming up again. First of all Bryonmorrigan clearly needs to evaluate how his statements are going to be interpreted or reacted to by other users - it is a waste of everyone's time to resort to uncivil, combative, and derogatory behaviour - quite frankly it achieves nothing other than asserting a cocky obnoxious attitude used to make one feel better than the other person they are arguing with by putting them down - causing anger and resentment by the other person. Second of all, Both Bryonmorrigan and Collect need to provide reliable sources for claims made and not their personal opinions, nor their opinions of each other.--R-41 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    As I assiduously avoid personal attacks, I ask you show me exactly what comment I made you so deem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    For me the key issue is Bryonmorrigan's incivility which borders on personal attacks and he needs a clear warning from an Admin. Incivility and its related behaviors of battleground and personal attacks are poison to the success of WP because they drive away productive and civil editors. It should be dealt with quickly and firmly. The content issue between him/her and Collect is secondary.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    Are you requesting that this discussion here be transfer over to the Administrator's noticeboard for administrators to review Bryonmorrigan's behaviour? I am a bit busy, would you or another third-party user be willing to do this transfer?--R-41 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    Bryonmorrigan appears to be an infrequent editor, I think we should give him time to comment here at least, first. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    If, as appears to be the case, the allegation of Bryonmorrigan's "incivility" shouldn't have been brought here, there's no reason for Bryonmorrigan to reply here. WQA is not a first resort. At the top of the page are clear instructions about the steps to take before coming here, e.g. Before requesting assistance your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor, usually on their talk page; and Avoid initiating a request if: You have not followed the directions at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes; politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor - emphasise the desire to move forward constructively and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues while assuming good faith -- none of which, AFAICT, R-41 did. I stand, or rather sit, to be corrected. Apologies in advance to R-41 if there are diffs I haven't found. Writegeist (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Note: The headers were comprehensively overhauled soon after I wrote the above. The post cites instructions that no longer apply. Writegeist (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    If I made a mistake in the process of addressing this I apologize because I have not used this noticeboard before. I presented a diff that clearly showed a highly uncivil and combative remark by Bryonmorrigan to Collect. With the situation on that talk page rapidly escalating in uncivil behaviour, I believed that I had a choice of either reporting Bryonmorrigan to Administrator's noticeboard - where unless it is severe no action is typically taken - or bringing it here to seek a resolution of uncivil behaviour and giving advice to Bryonmorrigan on preferable alternative behaviour. Given the number of diffs Collect has shown of Bryonmorrigan's recent highly uncivil and combative behaviour I think the situation warrants a resolution now. Other third-party users here clearly see the problem this behaviour causes - it discourages other users to contribute when they see such combative hostile behaviour, as such it is disruptive - and I think it is best if we solve it now.--R-41 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Posting here is fine; Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. (Personally I'm holding off commenting until I see if the editor is going to respond when they resume editing). Nobody Ent 01:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply R-41. With respect, those weren't your only choices. The first recourse open to you, and the one of least dramah, as clearly indicated on this page, was to raise your "incivility" concern directly with Bryonmorrigan. Also the diffs I meant---sorry if I wasn't clear---were not diffs of Bryonmorrigan's supposed transgressions. (And if you think those were "highly uncivil" you'd probably burst a blood vessel if you read some of the more prickly posts by certain other editors---Bryonmorrigan is a choirboy, albeit one with a fairly robust voice, by comparison.) No. I meant diffs showing you had the courtesy to try resolve your concerns directly with him, and failed, before raising them here. Which you didn't. Of course you still could, if you're really that bothered by them.
    Nobody Ent, I often find myself in agreement with you, and don't have much time for rules and procedures myself, but I see a worthwhile benefit in taking the simple first step of direct engagement: it gives editors the opportunity to work these things out quietly and collegially (civilly, even?) without immediately dragging them onto the dramaboards, which tend to be adversarial and counterproductive, and where questions of "incivility" tend to get blown out of proportion. Writegeist (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    I've seen Bryonmorrigan do this before with other users and have told him not behave in an uncivil way, he denied that he was and didn't listen to me. I do not typically have any arguments with Bryonmorrigan, I more likely agree with him as my views are similar in principle to his, but his behaviour towards others he disagrees with is often rude and causes disruption on talk pages. As this is a place to provide advice to users who have engaged in uncivil behaviour without punishing them, I thought at the time I posted it that this was the perfect venue to address this ongoing issue to be reviewed from multiple users - uninvolved with discussions between Bryonmorrigan and Collect, who could review these edits and to provide constructive advice on how to avoid such incidents from happening in the future. I made a mistake in the process of addressing this but I agree with the user Nobody Ent, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Now that this issue has been addressed, rather than regretting that it has been brought up here out of the order of the process, I suggest that that third-party users take a more positive approach here by reviewing the issue and provide constructive advice to Bryonmorrigan and Collect on how to better respond to disagreements in order to help both of them avoid getting into uncivil entanglements.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Let's cut to the chase. You're at WQA because you want "third-party users" to "provide constructive advice to Bryonmorrigan and Collect on how to better respond to disagreements in order to help both of them avoid getting into uncivil entanglements." May I? If Bryonmorrigan and Collect want to avoid getting into "uncivil entanglements", my advice is to respond agreeably to disagreements. Advice duly dispensed, and Bryonmorrigan and Collect shown the smooth path to a future of blissfully congenial collaboration, would it be OK to put this to bed now? Writegeist (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    I am not surprised that you mis-posted the "rules" here, and happened upon this thread. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you. Might the inanity of a comment be missed, shouting in boldface is an effective way to amplify it. Beers. Writegeist (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC) (After which, Collect "undid" his shouting. Yet, curiously, the quality of the comment still comes across loud and clear. LOL.) Writegeist (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Important? Not. The use of an accidental semicolon from a keyboard is ... accidental. If you check, you will find the edit was changing an accidental semicolon into a colon. But I suppose that is a "major edit"? Not. Cheers - but this is not even at the level of using "sic" when quoting a clear typo. Collect (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if I accidentally gave the impression that I thought a comment of yours was important, or in any way a "major edit." Beers. Writegeist (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    I would advise you to be civil on the WQA board. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    False accusations of vandalism and unwillingness to colloborate

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere – RFC in progress Nobody Ent 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


    WilliamJE removed a large number of references in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine articles. The references were to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set but they included a link to the Misplaced Pages article about the DVD set, which apparently caused him to believe they were circular references to Misplaced Pages. My attempts at engaging WilliamJE in discussion about the issue have been met with hostility. See also our respective edit histories and for more background.

    What I am hoping for as an outcome here is that WilliamJE will engage in respectful discussion with me and show some willingness to collaborate. Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    A wikipedia dispute resolution ruled on this and made an edit. Unhappy with the outcome, tried putting the same material in the article but modified with the comment of 'this concept is obviously difficult for some people.'...William 00:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Since you are participating here I would again, respectfully ask you to explain what your objection is to citing the DVD of a TV show on the article about that TV show. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    As far as the assertion that our dispute was "ruled", I probably don't need to remind anyone that Misplaced Pages operates by consensus and no single editor is empowered to make a "ruling" on any subject. Dlabtot (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    The just started RFC is ongoing so no consensus has been achieved. I'm not seeing very much of a civility issue here -- it's most a content discussion which the RFC should resolve. Nobody Ent 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    I would agree with you if it weren't for WilliamJE's assertions that I am committing "vandalism" because the RfC has been "ruled" upon. Would you care to comment on whether WilliamJE's assertions that I am a "vandal" are appropriate and civil? Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    I am a volunteer clerk/mediator with the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Above, WilliamJE claims "A wikipedia dispute resolution ruled on this" but provides no links to WP:DRN or any other noticeboard. Furthermore, DRN does not "rule" on anything. As it clearly states at the top pf WP:DRN: "This page helps determine consensus and reach compromises. It is not a formal process, so no binding decisions are issued here." (emphasis in original). WilliamJE, please refrain from making false claims about the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Also note that anyone can participate on DRN, and that some participants go to articles and fix obvious problems. This is normal and perfectly acceptable editor behavior, not a "ruling" by DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    The link provided refers to an RFC, not DRN( while DRN is dispute resolution, not all dispute resolution is DRN).
    @Dlabtot, of course such a statement is inappropriate, but I missed it -- did you provide a diff? Nobody Ent 09:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Sort of, the edit summaries in the above linked articles contain 'reverted x by Dlabtot as vandalism' comments.Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Pattern seems to be, WilliamJE removes source citing policy circular, Dlabtot reverts saying circular doesnt apply, at that point WilliamJE is reverting Dlabtot as vandalism. I think a reading of WP:Vandalism is in order. Especially what is not vandalism.Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    I was aware of the RfC, but it never occurred to me that anyone would call an RfC with zero votes a "ruling". I apologize for the confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    Category: