Revision as of 11:57, 17 October 2009

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:Jk54

Over a period of about a year and a half now, this user has consistently re-inserted their large WP:OR into the article Quilliam Foundation, despite the efforts of numerous other editors over the history of the article. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=316382567&oldid=315693400

The user has continually reverted, with no argument, the attempts to remove their Original Research essay, and apparently ignores the discussions against this. It would be helpful if an administrator could help out on this topic somehow, or at least look into the article and watch the article, because the process of reverting their original research has stubbornly continued for over a year. Avaya1 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to take a poll on the article's talk page, asking which version is better, Jk54's long version, or the short version that you support. If, as seems likely, multiple editors support the short version while Jk54 is the only supporter of the long version, you will be able to state that continued attempts to violate consensus will be viewed as disruptive, and you will probably be able to get an admin to block the editor if the disruption continues. (If you do decide to go ahead with such a poll, make sure you ask that people not give long explanations, and not respond to other people's opinions, or it will degenerate into a mess.) Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I'll do that when I have time. But all the other editors of the article seem to have disappeared? Surely at least insofar as any re-inserted material obviously contravenes basic wikipedia rules about NPOV and original research, we can just prevent the re-insertion of material

This what Jk54's version of the article looked like before we managed to cut it down: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quilliam_Foundation&oldid=223641695

So we have made some progress at least. Avaya1 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But all the other editors of the article seem to have disappeared

In that case, a topic request for comment might be a better option, as it'll get outside opinion. At a glance, however, what Jk54 is adding is definitely original research (for instance, all the sections that take external political definitions - or unsourced ones - and use them to produce original critique of the Quilliam Foundation's stance). Not to mention the number of unreliable sources, such as forums and blogs, JK54 cites. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IF there is any original research, please quote it so it can be discussed and if shown to be the case, can be removed. Citing things in general terms does not help the discussion nor does arbitrary removal of cited material. Jk54 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All you need to know is that if you write something like:

Professor Willy McGilly defines extremism as wearing dresses. Applying this definition to the Women's Institute classifies it as extremist

it's original research - WP:SYNTH - unless Prof. McGilly himself made that analysis. I'm sure you can see for yourself where that applies in the material you keep adding. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Such statements should then be removed - Avaya1 is removing large chunks of referenced research.Jk54 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether or not the original research is reliably referenced or even NPOV (although both of these are also necessary, but not sufficient, conditions). The point is that it is original research. If you want to publish well-referenced essay material, this encyclopedia is not the place. Also read WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH Avaya1 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you actually read the article - there is considerable non-original research. Any original research you object to, if substantiated, can be removed - it is clearly unacceptable to remove non-original referenced work which you/Quilliam Foundation dislike.

Furthermore, Avaya1 has appeared from nowhere, has contributed nothing to wiki whatsoever, and has a sole biased interest in this article alone - I would ask the editors to review his IP address and it will no doubt reveal he is a sock puppet of the Quilliam Foundation. Jk54 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Jk54's very long material is not appropriate. Though he is thorough, his material is highly opinionated and is not neutral. He seems to be critical of the foundation and what he adds to the article reflects his personal views. In the past, it has not been easy to get enough people to show up to form a consensus on that article's talk page. See Quilliam Foundation#Jurisprudential revisionism where the article offers criticism of the Foundation in Misplaced Pages's own voice. Same thing in Quilliam Foundation#Abdullah Quilliam. To illustrate his limited understanding of our policy, in this recent edit to the article Jk54 describes the previous editor's change as 'vandalism.' His persistence in the face of all other contributors might be considered as edit warring. Note that in the cited edit, he removes a lot of work of other contributors while adding his own. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem if someone removes POV or original research, as per the example you quote. The problem is that there is numerous cases of neutral facts being reported too which are being removed. Avaya1 is not distinguishing between the two and removing everything wholesale. To take things forward constructively and achieve concensus, I would suggest that an editor goes through the article removing what clearly violates wiki standards and retains that which is acceptable.Jk54 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue has also been disputed here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN3#User:Avaya1_reported_by_User:Jk54_.28Result:_.29 Avaya1 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Warmpuppy2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Warmpuppy2 (talk · contribs) In the past couple of days I added the image File:Johnny Test Cast Poster.jpg to the Johnny Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. But the user Warmpuppy2 removed the image stating on my talk page that the image was unencyclopedic and that I was a Schmuck who didn't know the rules. Now Warmpuppy did eventually own up to their remark and appologized. Now I continued on and re-added the image and move the character section into it's own page List of Johnny Test characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As it is my understanding that images such as cast poster are encourage for use as they feature mutiple characters from the list, I see no reason why this image can't be utilized from the list. But Warmpuppy feels differently and keeps taking the image down and replacing it with either this or this. I went to the discussion page voicing my thoughts on the matter and asked them mutiple time in my edit summery to go there and voice their thoughts and they would, for the most part, egnore me, or give big infarct no in their edit. Eventually they called my attempts to put the image back as vandalizim and threatened me with an indefinite block. Then they proceeded to add an indefinte block tag on my user page as seen here. Shortly after, I dicovered that they began adding more images of the characters into the list which I know to be a big copyright violation. I pointed this out to them in my edit summary, but they refused. So when I anounced that would report them, they went an blankened the page. Now I will admit that this has most likely turned into an edit war. Yet I tried to prevent this by getting Warmpuppy to discuss rationally. I didn't go to their talk page as I didn't want to personalize the situation. But I hope I not in any trouble for my actions. Sarujo (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the List of Johnny Test characters page because of the edit war between you two. I'll leave it up to others here to discuss the behavorial issues of this post. either way (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Sarujo (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears that Warmpuppy continues with his actions. Not too long ago I just removed another tag they place on my user page claiming that I was banned from editing as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User David A

Greetings. I think David A needs cautioning as he has a habit of inserting inflammatory comments in his Edit Summaries about other users, particularly myself . This is at times taken to an extreme as he's taken a shot across my bow in a summary at an article I haven't even looked at for over a year . Although there are disputes about some of the content he inserts, I'd just like him to tone it down in discussion and not deliberately try and bait others. A glace at his contributions and comments also paint a picture

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used David A's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian is asking that he or she not be named in David A's edit summaries. This request is entirely reasonable and must be respected. In future, David A must not name Asgardian in edit summaries, and probably should not name any other User in edit summaries except where it is unmistakably a positive or neutral reference. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few years and literally hundreds of instances of experiences with Asgardian's brand of systematic information-distortion, methodical deceit, and heavy manipulation, and am the type that's virtually unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever, so when he consistently creates the same types of situations over and over again it turns impossible to not point it out. I have a major hang-up just about deceit and deliberate/the same pattern repeated over and over again information-twisting/misinformation, whereas I always speak the truth as I see it at all times. It's both a part of my lifelong medical disorder and the resulting personality stemming from it. I've had experiences with death-threatening stalkers, people who start chewing my head off for very little reason, and people who want to wantonly delete pages I've invested a lot of time in, sometimes in combination, but not even all of them together have given me nearly as bad an experience/impression as Asgardian to my perception unbelievably calculated "very-dirty-trick I can get away with" deceit and disinformation, which has gradually completely worn down any layers of benefit of doubt, and almost erased my energy for even helping out at Misplaced Pages. Not to mention that accusing me of "baiting others" (as opposed to pointing out word-by-word exactly what he does, which is what I always do. He lies, I tell the truth, it's why we don't get along) here hardly rhymes with his old tactic of calling me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged".

Just to use a few more easily found examples. We are talking about a few years here after all, and as the greater amount of long-time ongoing "completely rewriting the content of fictional publications in the summaries" parts are harder to refer without you personally actually reading them all:

Asgardian being proven sockpuppet user, and that's just the one that's been discovered, which to me further underlines his overall willingness for systematic deceit, and turns especially suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits:

Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring (although he's since started to simply do one revert a day to get away with it, regardless if anyone agrees or not):

Newer conflicts:

User: J Greb also noticing my ongoing hair-tearer (which makes it impossible to make useful corrections or matter-of-fact logical discussion, which I've repeatedly tried with him to no avail) that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian characteristically stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it/until the specific regulation is pointed out: "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Misplaced Pages."

User: Nightscream also noticing Asgardian's systematic tendency for manipulation, i.e. the whole "drive people insane with annoyance over what I'm consistently actually doing in my edits, and not being honest in my edit summary rationalisations" and then accuse them of "incivility" simply for pointing it out, which given that he does what he always does makes it completely impossible to even respond:

Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down:

Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and again going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos no matter the result he will eventually sneak in there and revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so, previous middle-road solutions and adjustments be damned:

In addition, what started to make me see him for what he is was in an old Talk (1-2 years ago) edit wherein he expressed amusement at my outrage over his lies, and considered it infantile to have that kind of perspective of decency, but I didn't find it when looking for it. It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. This is just the latest in a very long line of tactics that he uses as weapons to do so. Dave (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does any of that mean you have to take potshots at him personally in long, wordy edit summaries? Without getting into this specific situation, dealing with editors you have problems with is part of life on Misplaced Pages and we are supposed to deal with it in the appropriate way. Being "the type that's unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever" doesn't give you the right to get personal in edit summaries. There are so many better ways to deal with this kind of thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pm master and policy v. expertise

User:Pm master and I are having a disagreement over at A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, as described at Talk:A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge#8 October 2009 cleanup. Here's the short version:

• I've tried to discuss changes to the article in terms of Misplaced Pages policy, but instead, I've been told that unless I am a subject matter expert, my edits are not wanted ("your edits to articles that you obviously don't know enough about are not helpful," " Please if you're not a Project Manager don't go and vandalize established articles just for the sake of fixing what is not broken (you call it cleanup).," & "Please don't hide behind Misplaced Pages standards to prove that you're right in editing the content of an article you clearly have no clue whatsoever what it's about.").
• So far as I can tell, he believes that he owns the article ("I'm here, and I'll keep protecting this article." & "me, as well as every other Project Manager, don't want this article to turn into rubbish.")
• He has, several times now, accused me of vandalism and page blanking—which I have never done. Here's the last version I tried out; note that while it may be a stub, it is not blank, and contains more (ok, one versus zero) references than his preferred version.
• My reaction to this was to whip up a little table of how I saw our disagreements and suggested that we take it to WP:3O. His response: "You have too much time on your hands," & "please stop wasting my time on this, and yours, and move over to another specialized article where your helpful blanking of the page will be welcome."
• As he hadn't said no to getting a WP:3O, and I felt like discussion wasn't productive, I listed it there.
• He then stated that he'd never agreed to the WP:3O and that once again, I should just go away.
• User:RegentsPark came in and gave his opinion. From my perspective, about the only thing he and I disagreed on is that I thought there was some value as a stub, and he thought that without any third-party sources, it should just be sent right to AFD.

I've tried hard to maintain my cool and stay focused on policy and guidelines in the face of personal attacks. But the current status is that User:Pm master will not deign to discuss changes with the likes of me, and, most importantly, the article isn't improved. If y'all can be of any help in this, you've got my thanks and appreciation. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have advised the editor via his talk page of the Misplaced Pages guidelines on referencing and verifying claims, as well as pointing out that a page should be accessible by anyone with an interest in the topic and not just experts. I also reminded them to assume good faith of other editors, as all those involved on the page seem to be trying to improve it. I hope that concensus can be reached, although I think the best solution here would be to do an in-depth search for references so that some "middle ground" can be found so to say, so that not so much content is removed in one big jump. Happy editing to you both. --Taelus (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that PM Master wants to own that particular article no matter what, and it seems that WP policy won't stand in his way. This is plain wrong, IMHO. The user doesn't seem to want to listen to anyone who throws policy in his face, yet is quick to point out that his expertise on the subject matter trumps our policies. Sorry to say, PM Master, but even if you were a 50-year expert on the subject, our policies always come first. ArcAngel (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for dropping by and giving your opinions. The article will soon be referenced properly and this will be resolved as discussed on the page. I do not own the article, I'm just here to help make the Project Management category on Misplaced Pages better and more solid. User Dori is just trying to prove a point, the user could have made a search and referenced the article properly, but chose not to. Instead, the user chose to post here, on my user page, and on the article's discussion page (and maybe somewhere else), and create a big deal out of this trivial argument, simply because the user doesn't like his/her edits to be reverted. PS: I edited the title to include both our usernames, not just mine. Dori, if you don't want your username to be in the title, then please remove mine as well. Thanks!Pm master 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • One more thing, the table on the article's discussion page does not reflect my view on the subject, the table was completely filled by the user Dori, which is misleading, IMO. I never said that references are useless, I didn't say that the article should not be categorized as a book (but I did say that is should remain under Project Management), I didn't say any of the things that the user stated in the table, it was all Dori's assumptions. I have no aspirations whatsoever of becoming and administrator (contrary to the user Dori, which probably is the reason why we're just short of summoning a G8 meeting to resolve the issue). The user took it very personal that the edits were reverted, twice. Everyone's welcome to edit the article, but please do some research prior to the edit. Failing that, the article may wind up as complete nonsense. Pm master 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • My responses:

        

        • User Dori is just trying to prove a point

          If by "prove a point" you mean "improve an encyclopedia," you're right. If you mean anything else, you're (again) making unfounded accusations against me.

        • the user could have made a search and referenced the article properly, but chose not to

          Such as, say, adding a {{cite book}} to the article? Oh wait, I added that one; you're the one that took it out again.

          And I'll ask you your own question: where are the references you've added? You reverted a valid reference I'd added, removed the References header entirely, and claim that you have expertise in this area—so, why haven't you added any references?

        • the user chose to post here, on my user page, and on the article's discussion page

          Note, up above, where it says that (a non-optional) part of posting an alert here is to

          Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page.

          That's what I did—exactly what policy states, no more and no less. If you have a problem with policy, then go work on changing it.

        • create a big deal out of this trivial argument, simply because the user doesn't like his/her edits to be reverted

          My preference was to discuss edits on the article's talk page. You made it clear there that, so far as you were concerned, neither my opinions nor my edits had any value. At that point, I had three choices: edit war (against policy), allow you to own the article (against policy), or follow the dispute resolution process and see what the consensus was. Once again, I chose to follow policy. And again, if you have a problem with policy, then go work on changing it.

        • Dori, if you don't want your username to be in the title, then please remove mine as well

          No, I've just put it back to my original. As you pointed out above, I posted links elsewhere pointing here. Changing the title here broke those links. Additionally, if you look at the other sections on this page, they follow a similar structure: one person objecting to another's behavior, with the editor in question's name as (all or part of) the alert's title.

        • the table was completely filled by the user Dori, which is misleading

          Yep, which is why I wrote, "Obviously, I've guessed at your thoughts above, so if you could you edit that column to accurately reflect your opinions, I think we'd be set" and later, "you're still free to add your thoughts and opinions to the table above." I've never claimed that that column reflects your opinions, but rather, how I've perceived them. For the third time: you're invited to modify that column. If you choose not to, that's your choice.

        • probably is the reason why we're just short of summoning a G8 meeting to resolve the issue

          Once again, I'm simply working my way through the completely standard normal everyday dispute resolution process. You refused to participate in the third opinion process, which is how we ended up here. What do you suggest we do otherwise? (outside of just allowing you to own the article, sadly).

        • The user took it very personal that the edits were reverted, twice.

          And you say this based on what? If you think that following policy = hurt feelings, then I have some doubts about us reaching consensus.

        • Everyone's welcome to edit the article, but please do some research prior to the edit. Failing that, the article may wind up as complete nonsense.

          It's complete nonsense now—I've simply been trying to remove some of the nonsense. And the only research an editor needs to do before removing uncited information—in any article—is verify that a citation can't be found. I've done that. If you're able to find a citation, please add it. So far, all you've done is re-add uncited content and remove the citation I've tried to add.

      • User:Pm master: please stop making personal comments about me and how you perceive I feel. They aren't helping you make your case. If your goal is to make me lose my temper, well, I'm trying hard to avoid that. Can we please focus on the article instead?
      • User:Taelus and User:ArcAngel: thanks for your efforts! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I advised the user again to disengage and focus on their goal of adding references to the article, rather than engaging in revert cycles. May I also suggest Dori that you tag everything that needs citing/clean-up, then give it all a week before removing unfixed points? This would seem to diffuse the scenario, and the tags will inform readers of potential problems with what they read. If not, perhaps all the current problematic content could be userfy'd for future improvement to User:Pm masters userspace, as they claim they are busy off-project currently. --Taelus (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I added both maintenance tags and a citation in previous edits. User:Pm master reverted both. I'd be happy to add both/either again if I thought that he'd allow them to stay, but I have no reason to believe that he will. User:Pm master, if you're okay with this, I'd be happy to do it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User Dori and Misleading Assumptions

A few days ago, User Dori and I had a trivial argument over an unreferenced article, the A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. The argument has grown out of proportions since. The user stubbed the article, I reverted, in good faith, the user reverted back while explaining why, and I reverted back aslo explaining why. The user insists that stubbing the article is better than to have a more solid (yet still short), but unreferenced article. The user also created a table, full of misleading information about my opinion towards Misplaced Pages standards and the subject. The user constantly claims that he's trying to keep his temper, trying to avoid losing his temper, etc... Because the user is so dramatic and has aspirations in becoming an administrator, he has drawn support against me (posting here, on my talk page, and on the article's page), while I'm only trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Essentially, the main reason why other wikipedians came to his support is sympathy for his cause after he made the table comparing his opinions on the subject against what mine, which he wrote (now he cleared it). Every assumption the user Dori made was completely misleading to the other people mediating. The user claims that I'm pushing him to lose his temper, while, IMHO, I feel that he's pushing me.

My main and only presence on Misplaced Pages is to make the Project Management section better, yes I consider myself an expert on the field, and no I don't consider non Project Managers unworthy of contributing. The very simple issue is that Dori's edits (IMO) have not helped the article, and that's why I reverted back, twice, and I explained why I did it.

I am a Wikipedian for over 3 years now, and I have never been involved in a conflict before.

I have no aspirations whatsoever of becoming an administrator, I love working on this little section on Misplaced Pages and I am dedicated to make it better (is that bad?). I do not own any article nor I try to own any article (as falsely assumed) nor I wish to own any article nor I think I can own any article. I know for a fact that Misplaced Pages is for everybody. But is it that bad to revert someone's edit (who's also aspiring to become an administrator). The edits were simply not good, and that's why I reverted. Is it really worth it to make all these false assumptions, misleading others, just to get someone's revert reverted? Is it worth it for me to be stressed out and have every day someone posting new and misleading stuff about me.

Small message to Dori: Dori, in case you're reading this, I had never and I will never have anything personal towards you. I don't even know you. You thinking that I'm pushing you is completely inaccurate, I'm not. I have no problem with you editing the article but I'm sure you know as a Wikipedian with history that it's very normal to have your edits edited/reverted in case another editor doesn't think they're helpful.

I have had multiple messages on my talk to assume good faith, I totally agree, but the question is, is the user Dori (who repeatedly makes false and misleading assumptions about me) assuming good faith? The user is constantly trying to besmirch my name while I was only trying to close this issue.

I would love to have objective help on this issue, I just want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and I don't want to be constantly stressed out by the user Dori.

Thanks for the help!Pm master 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

I have used Dori's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got to leave for tonight, but I have time to ask a few questions:

• I'd like to see diffs of things I've said where I've offended you (especially where I didn't give you a chance to add your thoughts).
• I'd like to know the reason you didn't take this to WP:3O first, given that you knew that I was fine with following that process.
• I'd like to know why you didn't notify me of this, given that it's a required part of the process.

User: Dolphin51, thank you for notifying me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dori's first request above (I'd like to see diffs ...) is reasonable. However, my view is that the other two requests are rhetorical questions and are not relevant to the matter in hand. Pm master is free to ignore the second and third request.

All Users are encouraged to come to this site to report what they believe to be breaches of Misplaced Pages's principles of etiquette. When Users make Wikiquette reports on this site they won't be subjected to questioning about their motives or methods, or questioning that might be perceived as interrogation or intimidation. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the 2nd and 3rd questions above per Dolphin51's objection to them. However, I still don't understand quite what the issue is that User:Pm master is reporting here. From my perspective, it just looks to me like a simple tit for tat reaction to my complaint about him, above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dori, in answer to your question, I didn't say you offended me (do you see the word offend/insult anywhere? Never mind, can you give me an example on where I even hinted that you insulted me?), yet I can give you an example if you want: "And I'll ask you your own question: where are the references you've added? You reverted a valid reference I'd added, removed the References header entirely, and claim that you have expertise in this area—so, why haven't you added any references?". I can only read sarcasm in this sentence. When you say that he's pushing me and I'm trying to keep my temper, you're not really helping your case either. Someone aspiring to be an administrator such as yourself should be calmer, should not waste other people's time, and should respect others (no sarcasm). When I look at the provoking triangle above, I see your attitude and I don't see mine. The point behind this conversation is that I felt that you were not accepting the idea that reverts can happen, and that there's no need to open multiple fronts to prove your point.

Now when I say that it was personal for you, I meant it, because you saying that you're trying to keep your temper can only mean you took it personally.

The whole problem is that you always give your misleading assumptions to trap others, and quite frankly I don't like to play these games. The table is an example, parts of your conversation above is an example, the "tit for tat" is another example. These misleading and false assumptions besmirched my, in my opinion, respected username, as others thought I was against Misplaced Pages standards. I'm sorry user Dori, but again, I assumed good faith all the way (I believe I told you that I had no problem with adding the PBMOK to the category books, no problem in formatting the article...), yet your only intention is to build a case against me.

My opinion is that an administrator in Misplaced Pages should have tolerance, flexibility, and impose respect with his great and lovable personality. The administrator also should understand that SMEs are vital to Misplaced Pages, and should try to increase their contributions, not waste their time. Unfortunately, my opinion about you is the complete opposite, but that's besides the point. If you want please comment on what I've said and let's just close this subject. I think we're both wasting other people's time as well. Thanks! Pm master 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

Pm master: you wrote above, "I didn't say you offended me." Generally, reports are made here because one editor feels offended by another. So, what is the reason you reported me here?

When I wrote above that "I still don't understand quite what the issue is that User:Pm master is reporting here," I meant just that; no more and no less. Given that there's been plenty of activity on this page, and the only third-party response to you I've seen in this complaint is Dolphin51 saying he'd notified me of it, I have to guess that I'm not the only one confused here. I'm sure that you know what you're referring to, so how about letting the rest of us in on it—for example, what "assumption" do you claim I made, and what was "misleading" about it? {{Diffs}} would be particularly helpful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please can you resolve this by citing the article Pm master? There is no real point to this WQA, as you have filed it in response to one being filed about you. The way I see it, either this can be resolved via following the concensus of citing the claims in the article, or it will simply be stuck. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit

User:Schrandit has recently taken to using patronizing and sexist terms to refer to me, such as "hun" and "love". This is part of an overall pattern of behavior that seems like baiting. I'd like him to stop. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is a old hand, probably a blocked user, possibly User:Spotfixer. This ip has been edit-warring against consensus terms and says he/she has been conspiring with another user, I feel a checkuser may be needed. - Schrandit (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who takes Schrandit's accusation seriously to look at my edit log and see for themselves that I've avoided violating even 2RR. On the other hand, he's gone on a reversion spree that I've allowed others to repair. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Today, User:Schrandit has also been changing the term for any woman who is pregnant in many articles from the medically accurate "pregnant woman" to the politically-charged and legally-incorrect (in the United States) "mother", perhaps in an attempt to legitimize claims that life begins at conception, rather than at birth. Such an attempt would be furthering the Pro-Life POV.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That does hint at his motivation, but I'd prefer to AGF. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I havn't changed anything on those pages, I've reverted the anon's work. Both terms are politically-charged, this is not the first time this disagreement has been brought up on abortion related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be wearing his motivation on his sleeve - his user page appears to have been stating that he was "Pro Life" or "Pro-Life" since this edit 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do, I try to be upfront about what I believe. - Schrandit (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out by User:Benjiboi that he has a pattern of finding fault with liberal articles, such as claiming they need more citations, and using this as a basis for deletion. He seems to be engaged in a long-term, low-key effort to violate WP:NPOV by selective enforcement of the rules, as well as selective violation. It's an interesting case. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Some folks have made those accusations, my record has been examined and my work has always been upheld.

Speaking of interesting cases - an anon edit-wars, thows around the wikipedia-lingo and brings a case to wikiquette - are you a sock or a banned user? - Schrandit (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you already know I'm not. Please don't add to your incivility by throwing out accusations in apparent bad faith. It's not going to deflect attention from your activities.

I'm going to ask you outright: are you going to stop using sarcastic, patrononizing and sexist terms such as "hun", "chief" and "love"? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw an accusation of that magnitude around unless I was very certain it was true. In the part of the country I'm from that just the way folks talk but if it will make you happy I'll try. So, banned user? - Schrandit (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking an answered question is badgering, another form of incivility. Going for a clean sweep? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you're referring to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Which is similarly irritating. Schrandit, if you have evidence, file an SPI. If not, drop it. --King Öomie 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Over time I've come to the view that using patronizing or condescending language is the most obnoxious form of trolling -- there is never any justification for it. Overt rudeness, even, is less objectionable. Schrandit, just stop doing that, please. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation. There is IMO more than ample evidence that 69.121.221.174 is Spotfixer. So, since I see no reason to believe a word of what 69.121.221.174 says after his/her deflection or denial of questions regarding his/her possible past account history, let's throw the sock back in the drawer and then get onto the content issues. Awickert (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of local friendliness, this is the internet and the use of condescending terms such as "hun" to denigrate any editor or belittle contributions is not welcome on Misplaced Pages. We may have 2 issues here (indeed, the clear non-NPOV editing might make 3), and each needs dealing with separately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User: Bedford and uncivil language

Whilst looking through the user talkpage of User:Die4Dixie, I noticed a conversation about the user's block. I have no opinion on that block of that user, but read a comment by User: Bedford about his loss of adminship some time ago. The comment can be found ] and, since I can't figure out how to do diff's, I'll reproduce it here through copy and paste: 'Similarly, there were those that did not care that I pointed out the fact I was gangraped last year on my page, and tried to get rid of that to hide their guilt. However, this arbitration case helped me, and it seems it would apply to Dixie's case as well: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi'

I found this to be an incredibly offensive comment; no matter the circumstances of the event in question, it can in no way be even vaguely compared to gangraping, a heinous, painful and disgusting act. I thus started a thread on Bedford's talkpage, the entirety of which can be found here: ]. I can use that diff because Bedford deleted the entire conversation with the edit summary of 'rmv garbage'. I don't find that to be the most complementary or helpful of language, and the same can be said for the entire conversation I had with Bedford. I admit that I did start by saying that such a term was 'disgusting' and 'disrespectful' but I stand by those words: they are and are entirely inappropriate to use. Bedford may have had his admin tools taken away without his agreement, but that can in no way be likened to being raped by multiple people.

I asked him whether he would refactor the comment made on the other user's talkpage, or whether he would replace it with less insluting and colourful phrasing which I believe to be essentially the same. However, he remained uninterested, rude and rather Dickish, going so far as to state that 'I will never strike out a phrase so apt in its description' and 'Yawn!!!' when I pressed him on the issue. I've never filed a WQA report before, but I'd like to see this end with the phrase either being struck out or modified with some less disrespectful language. Skinny87 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than making a fuss about what one editor puts on another editor's talk page? Behavior like that is the reason Bedford lost adminship -- he already knows that many other people find it offensive. If it rises to the level of justifying a block (which this doesn't), then complain at WP:ANI; otherwise this is a waste of effort. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you feel like that, but please WP:AGF. I've had no prior involvement with Bedford, but simply found the language distasteful and disrespectful And I do have better things to do - I'm doing a lot of content work anyway. I attempted to do everything I could to resolve this on his talkpage, but he refused, and so this was the next step. Skinny87 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think though it's an honest question, does this need to go further. A week ago, he made a comment on a talk page. You find his metaphor distasteful, he finds it appropriate. No one's going to change his mind on that issue. It's not a personal attack, just a general characterization of a previous situation. It's on a talk page, not in article space, or even article talk. What is best for wikipedia and all involved? Taking further steps to redact this comment that may be borderline, but isn't a dramatic policy violation, and has already sat around on a talk page for a week? Or would it be best to just move on?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So, consensus is that users can make such disgusting comments and get away with it? Very well, then, I'll drop it. But I'm certainly not happy about it. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For my own part I wouldn't presume to declare my opinion the consensus opinion. I'm just asking you to consider my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Distasteful, callous language, yes. But it's really not against the rules, especially not as a one-off statement. And neither is refusing to talk to you about it. If he's being a jerk, then he's being a jerk. You're kind of at an impasse here- there's no real recourse to compel a user to redact or change a statement they don't want to change, particularly when no rules have been violated. --King Öomie 19:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it simply the term "gangrape" you do not like, because Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not censored. If you don't like his description, don't look at it. End of story. Grsz 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, wonderful. There we are then. Skinny87 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution