Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks.

Request etiquette assistance

Before requesting assistance: Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor, usually on their talk page.

Avoid initiating a request if: The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere. You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures. It is a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties - try the dispute resolution noticeboard. You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia: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. Remember that the aim of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour - users can seek assistance regarding impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors.

When requesting assistance: Consider the helpful advice found here and see the dispute resolution process Try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language. Posting in haste and anger could add fuel to the fire, rather than helping to improve matters, thus try to avoid posting while upset. Include diffs that show the situation. (A guide to creating diffs is here) - supply a simple explanation of the problem, along with the involved parties and a link to the page(s) where the problem is happening - avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page Notify the involved 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). Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution, and that all helpers are volunteers (therefore the amount of time it may take to receive a response will vary) - if the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your post, if you have not received help and the problem escalates, please edit your post to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere. Do not continue your discussion in detail here; instead, continue discussing it at its original location - as long as your request contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen. Keep in mind that the conduct of all parties will be taken into account; assistance may come in the form of volunteers suggest how you can alter your behavior to avoid conflict.

Reporting form

Name your request for assistance (section header):

Active discussions

Jayjg Personal Attacks

• Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• American_Jews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jayg has been using personal attacks on my religions beliefs to discredit my opinions on talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 yisraeldov (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a personal attack. Note that Yisraeldov resumed editing four days ago after a two year break and has not informed Jayjg of this request. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't remember seeing where it said that if you don't make edits every day then you are vulnerable to personal attacks ? If you read the article on personal attacks it state

"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Jayjg has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me in Talk:Circumcision. Some examples include, 'Regarding whether there should be a tag, the views of Wimp O'Pede, a banned sockpuppet, are not relevant. Also, when it comes to broad policy and the proper use of tags, the views of Therewillbefact, tftobin, Robert B19 and Chevara, four editors who essentially joined Wikipedia this month, edit exclusively from an anti-circumcision POV, edit essentially one article (this one), and have a combined total of 9 article edits among them, carry little weight. In addition, Carlossuarez46 hasn't stated the article should be tagged. Finally, there's no "pro-circumcision argument for "cost-effectiveness" in the lead". "Perma-tagging" an article because one cannot insert policy-violating POV is an old tactic, and this article has been a particular target for it, but it's WP:DISRUPTive, so you'll have to come up with an actual and specific policy issue, because this won't be tolerated for much longer. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)'

'If I were to speculate, I would guess that people who hang out at "intactivist" fora, and who come here as a result of encouragement to do so in those fora, would be far more likely to be "true believers" promoting a POV than regular Wikipedia editors who are here because they support Wikipedia, and who have edited thousands of different articles besides this one. And given the persistent sockpuppeting on this article, the "unless" you mention is a significant concern here. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)'

'Perhaps they do exist, I wouldn't know. However, they don't really seem relevant to what happens in this article. Whenever new editors show up at this article, they inevitably edit from an strongly anti-circumcision viewpoint, so the scenario you suggest contradicts the reality of this article. And when I "take a hard look around me" and "check a little", I find literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists, maligning one specific editor here - saying (as one random example) conspiratorial things like "He trolls the internet late at night, looking for vulnerable parents to influence, to surgically alter their kids, while pretending to be neutral. This is a technique he picked up from feigning a neutral point of view with Wikipedia, all the while slanting it to a pro-circumcision position, but not enough so that those protest against his manipulations have arbitrators come down on their side. He collaborates with other circumcisers worldwide." These are the kinds of comments that indicate a profound misunderstanding of both this article and how Wikipedia works, and seem more like personal vendetta than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Another exammple is, 'I'm sorry you feel that way - although I must say, what happens on this talk page is not one-hundredth as hostile and vitriolic as the stuff I've seen over the past few days looking through various anti-circumcision fora and postings (random example provided in my posting above of 16:31, 3 February 2012). Jakew is extraordinarily patient. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)' I also find this reply rather snide, in its original context. 'Wikipedia welcomes all people who are willing to edit in accord with its policies. Having to edit in accord with Wikipedia's policies makes some people feel very unwelcome. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Additionally, I am not the only person who is experiencing difficulties with Jayjg.

'Jayjg, you mentioned the "literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists" In your opinion, do they offer any evidence that is currently not in the article?Chevara (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)' 'I can't vouch for everything they say, but based on a small random sample they mostly seem to contain a) personal opinion, often of a quasi-religious "good vs. evil" nature; b) personal attacks; and c) highly selective (and often misinterpreted) use of primary or non-scientific sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)'

'I would appreciate it if you both refrained from putting words in my mouth going forward. Jayjg said HIV-related content once consisted of 25% of the lead, and also mentioned that this percentage has drastically reduced since. Allow me to quote it: "Beejaypii spent literally weeks arguing that the lede devoted too much attention to HIV, because 25% of it (since significantly reduced) was on that topic (...)" Did Jayjg not just say here that 25% of the lead was previously devoted to HIV, and has "significantly reduced" since? Now what I was saying is that HIV coverage still consists of roughly 25% of the lead. The previous coverage of HIV content in the lead was actually closer to 30%, for what it's worth, and is now about a quarter. Jakew, the next time you ask someone who informs someone to get their facts straight, I politely ask that you've also done the same. '

This sets up a totally hostile atmosphere to anyone who comes onto the Talk:Circumcision page, in a way I don't see with the other editors. Thank you for your attention. Tftobin (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How should I go about informing him? I requested that he refrain from using personal attacks and referenced him to this link. --yisraeldov (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From the diff

Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best.

better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism.

There are other such comments on the same page that are belittling my opinion because I am a Haradi that lives in Israel. Why is that not "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" ?14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

There is nothing belittling in his comments. He simply was trying to explain that your view may not be shared by others outside of your own scope of experience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism."

That is extremely belittling, he is assuming because of my affiliation, that my knowledge is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this thread before it goes into an infinite do loop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Entropy and Miszabot terminate all WQA loops. Nobody Ent 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I find this wikipedia snobbery very troubling. First that some one continually used my religious affiliation to belittle my opinion, and second that everyone here seems to agree with him, and no one is willing to address my comments seriously. yisraeldov (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not saying we agree or disagree, just that you haven't provided evidence of personal attacks requiring sanctions. As of the time I'm writing this, I'd say that Wikipedia is barely civil but not overly polite. (The Arbitration Committee has accepted a case regarding the issue, so it's possible there may be some changes.) Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. Nobody Ent 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand. He said that because of my religion I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic ? Why is that not a personal attack yisraeldov (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because decisions made on Wikipedia are determined by consensus. Multiple editors have volunteered their time to reply to your request and we've explained the policy to the best of our ability. Nobody Ent 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to provide a link to the Arbitration Committee case which I assume is about general civility and not this dispute, as an FYI. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying link. @Nobody Ent wrote: Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. The problem I see is that there are a few Admins who really push the envelope on incivility, but if one were to be half as uncivil back, one would get "in trouble." (Not in this case but in other past ones involving this and other admins.) Admins really do have to live up to a higher standard of civility, and be careful of the threats (no matter how subtle) they wield when in contention with other editors on an article, or it makes other editors feel like second class citizens. This evidently has been an issue with User:Malleus Fatuorum, who is subject of the civility enforcement, in the past; though not clear from his user page if he's still an admin. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He is not an admin ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not hard to understand the complaint. Yisraeldov is complaining that Jayjg is construing as minimal Yisraeldov's "knowledge of Jewish history", and this is certainly a legitimate complaint. In fact Jayjg does not know the extent of Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history consequently Jayjg should not be commenting on Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history.

WP:TALK applies here: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I am referring to "Google is not a great metric, but it's a starting point, and certainly better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century 'Haredi' Judaism." Jayjg should not be commenting on another editor's "knowledge of Jewish history." Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking if someone is qualified to edit an article (or implying they are not) is an example of WP:OWNER behavior and should not be done.

I ended up here exploring options for dispute on circumcision pov tag. Jayjg has accused people of being disrupted 3 times for support of a NPOV tag, and claims he does not see any relevant POV disputes. Though, Jayjg has made contributed to 3 topics active in the past 5 days [ 1 ], [ 2 ] and [ 3 ], where WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are under discussion. there are more of these in the archive (the talk page archives at 5 days old)). I can't possibly see how Jayjg could have read and contributed to these topics and not seen that authors have POV disputes, when he himself is arguing to correct a POV or that someone else is adding POV. I find his disregard very uncivil if not a breach of policy. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg is famous for doing as many as 60-70 edits a day, though looking at hist last 500 contributions, he seems to have slowed down. It's hard to properly work toward consensus on articles when one does that much editing. It's easy to get into incivility and edit wars when one doesn't listen properly to others. I've done it from time to time when doing only 15 or 20 edits in a day. Jayjg needs to slow down. This is supposed to be a fun diversion, not a job where one is under pressure to produce, civility and consensus be damned :-) CarolMooreDC 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I just looked at the given diff (in original report and repeated above): Mathsci, Guerillero, OhNoitsJamie, and Nobody Ent have indicated above that the diff does not show a personal attack. I confirm that it is not a personal attack—in fact it is not a wikiquette issue at all. It is much better to speak plainly at Wikipedia because hiding a problem with circumlocutions or euphemisms does not help the encyclopedia or any of its editors. Please respond to the issues raised, not some imagined insult. Jayjg took some trouble to explain their point, and did not violate any guideline or policy. There is no evidence of a problem due to frequency of edits. The long post above regarding issues at Talk:Circumcision does not show any wikiquette issue either (suggestion: it would be better to show a single good example of what you think is a problem, and briefly explain why it is a problem). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User refusing to retract accusations of vandalism.

• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Topgun has in this section [2] called me a vandal for removing unsourced content and a probable BLP violation from the article. I have asked him to retract his comment and he has refused [3][4] twice. The probable BLP vio is This. I can find no other record of this anywhere. As I said on the talk page, It was sourced to a TV show. Something called geo.tv. I looked on Gnews and Gbooks for verification that this was said, now given it was supposedly said only last year I find it a little suspicious that no other news agency picked up on such a controversial statement. Based on the massive misrepresentation of sources already found in this article I have little option but to believe it is a fake citation. I would like him to remove his accusation of vandalism as I am most certainly not a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• He is also accusing me of removing sourced content, which is obviously untrue.[5][6][7][8] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, DS didn't look too hard. The deleted Musharraf quote can also be found via google news archives, at [9]. This of course does not justify the accusation, but there's blame enough to go round here. AGF, folks. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point, he asks me for good faith without extending the same to the user who added the source with complete information going against WP:SOURCEACCESS. And I didn't call him a vandal, but his reckless blanking of sourced content can surely be categorized in that and that is what I said. He has been making unambiguous personal attacks on me since last two months, stalking and hounding me. [10] [11] Just a glimpse of his most recent response to my clarification for his WP:SOUP attempt to an admin with cherry picked diffs (even those including sourced content). He has been using false pretext of BLP as a justification for editwar (noted by the same admin). I have more than enough diffs to open an RFC/U on him, but I was advised to let him have the WP:ROPE. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never asked you to show good faith, it would be pointless as you have repeatedly said you would not. The diffs were not cherry picked, they were in response to your lie that I was removing sourced content from the article, the same diffs are right up above for anyone to check. Magog most certainly has never said I was edit warring under false pretexts, another lie. I have not been hounding you, I had been checking your edits due to your habit of edit warring unsourced content into articles. And for the hideous bias you exhibit in your editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[12] His comment on you is clear. And assuming good faith is not mandatory, I would have done it though if you did the same.. and I have given you benefit of doubt everytime inspite of that. Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore... the comment above is clear about who makes the personal attacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• [13] Edit wars unsourced POV WP:OR onto an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive language

Resolved

• BillKlinton2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Anderson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Abusive language in edit summary. "User is a nigger" Jim1138 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely, edit summary redacted. In the future, abuse this blatant can go right to the admin's noticeboard. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WILKEPEDIA PAGE being Abused by Administrator. Keeps deleting! PLEASE HELP!

Resolved: Not that it was a Wilkiquette issue in the first place, but the filer has been hit rather hard by a boomerang. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Eagles247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Stanford Routt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To Whom It may Concern:

Wilki administrator Eagles247 has modified AND DELETED Routt, Stanford statistics from his wilkepedia page. His stats have been online for the past few years and deleting it in attempt to minimize Routt's career is wwrong. I need the help of A Wilkepedia administrator that is NON SUBJECTIVE to either go through Routt's OLD page which went untouched for months. I would like to leave everything that was on the page other than the latest breaking news from February 2012. Any assistance would be helpful.

This is very unusual and also decietful to people who come on wilkepedia to get the facts about an individual. Deleting Posts that have existed for years is in very POOR taste.

Feel free to view the edit history from Eagles247. I would appreciate if someone can help me. Thanks in advance.

Eagles comment on the edit history -- copyvio -- is Wikipedia shorthand for copyright violation. They're saying that it appears the content was cut and pasted -- maybe from here? -- which is illegal and not consistent with the intellectual license Wikipedia operates under. If you think that is not the case the place to discuss the issue is Talk:Stanford Routt Nobody Ent 23:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Wikiquitte dispute by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, your version of the article grossly violates WP:MOS and is completely unsourced. Take your objections and suggestions to the article's talk page, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things. It's not abuse by an admin, it's just an ordinary editor who is removing the material. Second, it's not stats, it's copyrighted material from http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/carolina-panthers/77262-stanford-routt-released.html and possibly other locations that you're adding and that is being removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanford_Routt&action=historysubmit&diff=476034116&oldid=476033889 Third, you might want to read WP:COPYVIO. Should the editor tell you that more directly? Sure. Should you be surprised that you can't break copyright laws and get away with it? Probably not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So why delete his college statistics and stats and records from the NFL. What exactly is the issue- please explain in detail. NOTHING WAS ADDED other than the release. The Administrator DELETED Routt's entire wilkepedia. All of which are verified by the Associated Press, NFL.com and ProFootBall Talk. I didn't ADD anything other than the fact that Routt GRADUATED with a BSc in Kinesilogy from University of Houston in 2011. Please explain why the editor is CLEARING everything. This is insanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The exact phrasing used elsewhere is copyrighted. If you want to use the data provided, it's certainly allowable to write your own words in the article. Just be should to include a reference to where you got the data from (see WP:CITE ) Nobody Ent 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is still the wrong place for this discussion. Take it to the article.

They're all copyright violations. I checked every paragraph that was removed and they're all lifted, letter-for-letter from another source. I may be wrong, it's just that there are a lot of Google hits on the material. Also, I don't know about American football articles, but in association football articles, we don't list the stats for players before entering international competition or professional leagues, so it's a bunch of trivia or possibly fan cruft. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just EDITED it AGAIN in MY own words that DONT violate copyrights and its been deleted. What gives? Where do I take this discussion??? I addeded in my edit link to verify data. I really need help with this- can a senior editor email me please. It's very frustrating to deal with someone basically CLEARING out stuff without reason. Copyright violation you stated and I removed it and added ORIGINAL words and sentences. Please help. And also how do I reach this particular administrator to see what exactly the ISSUE is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it here Talk:Stanford Routt. Nobody Ent 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of being notified of this discussion, I get slapped with a 3RR warning. That's a Wikiquette violation in itself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've finally read over this discussion. I stumbled upon this article after learning of Routt's release from the Raiders. Immediately I removed copyright violations of his Raiders bio (among other edits). Within minutes, an IP user (undoubtedly this user here) added back the full copyvio here. I reverted and left a warning on the IP's talk page. Seven minutes later, I was reverted again, this time by User:Nflfacts2k2. I assumed good faith and did not block immediately, and instead left another warning for the user. Apparently Nflfacts2k2 changed the text to his own words (or somewhat close) here, but I assumed it was the same text as before, as it appeared very similar, and I reverted again. Of course, I also did not receive notification of this thread, so I could not have known the user was thoughtfully edited after that. The user has since reverted my revert, and the text is still similar to that of his Raiders bio under "College". FWIW, the two above links (one to a forum and one to a fan site) include text copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Three reverts is bad news. You shouldn't sweat repeated additions. Take it to WP:ANI instead, and in this case you have WP:CCI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I know policy and where the notice boards are, thanks. I'm not a new user by any stretch. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that removing clear copyright violations is a 3 revert rule exemption. If an editor is adding copyrighted text, anyone may revert them more than three times in a 24 hour period. The 3RR warning given to Eagles247 was not appropriate. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, guys, we've missed something very important here... Nflfacts2k2 was modifying Wilkipedia, not Wikipedia, so obviously Wikipedia's rules about WP:CITE, WP:3RR, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF would don't apply. I don't know what Wilkipedia's standards are on those issues, but if it was on Wikipedia, someone needs those policies and guidelines beaten into them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Way to stay classy, Ian.thomson. Even though Nflfacts2k2 is in the wrong here – and more than a little over the top in his use of SCREAMING CAPS – it's not necessary or helpful to mock him for a typo. Particularly on a board that's supposed to be for resolving issues involving failures of basic courtesy between editors. I understand that it's socially acceptable on Wikipedia to abuse and deride new editors who don't quite understand how this project works after they've embarrassed themselves on a noticeboard, but do you think it's a good idea? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Wikipedia's rules, Muphry's law "would does" apply. Ian.thomson may be mocked in return. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem "would don't apply".... ohrly? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that irony, or sarcasm? Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps its a huge misunderstanding. I apologize to those offended by my ALL CAPS Our team is working deligently to fix the copyright issues by professionally rewriting in OUR words and listing references to support what is written. This will be an all day process so I ask you eagles247 to relax with the reverts as changes are being made to include facts deleted. Someone else mentioned an article souding like it was written unprofessinally. I assure you it's not the case. Eagles247 made the change that contained a typo yesterday so I guess we aren't all devoid of error. I please ask administrators to wait 24-48hrs as we adjust everything to include what was deleted. I just want all the accuracies kept. I appreciate all the feedback and thanks for helping to solve this problem. My intent was not to harm anyone. I will ask questions should I run into any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've blocked Nflfacts2k2 indefinitely per her comment immediately above in which she purports her account is operated by a "team" of individuals in violation of WP:NOSHARE. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update: Nflfacts2k2 has stated that she "runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt" here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil editor

• Charlr6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Paranormal Activity 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) {{|User talk:Charlr6}}

Editor has been rude on the Paranormal Activity 3 page and when I asked them not to be on their talk page he has been uncivil and we have been bantering back and fourth as a result. Odoital25 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One instance (a diff would have been helpful on your part) where he states that two editors are lazy. Not acceptable, but neither is the attack on his talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning left, although calling someone lazy isn't the worst offence I've seen in the past 24 hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the editors accused of being lazy by Charlr6, I'm far less concerned by his rather childish lashing out than I am by the fact he's been on Wikipedia for over 4 years and doesn't understand that the onus is on the contributor of information to prove that it is accurate via reliable sources. I haven't been inclined to respond on his talkpage as it's clear he thinks his actions beyond reproach. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start using Wikipedia properly until the past few months and I only added information in occasionally. And maybe you should take a look at my comment/question back to Walter on my talk page and see if what I am saying is childish and uncivilised. You don't have to comment back to it if you don't want to, but I do have a clear point. Charlr6 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walter, just informing you that I have asked you a question on my page. Would ask on here but don't know whether it would be allowed or not. Thank you. Charlr6 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 

User:Carlaude continues to move/delete my comments despite repeated requests not to

User:Carlaude continually disregards my requests to stop editing my comments. I request that someone else intervenes. User:Carlaude has twice moved my comments and once deleted a request to stop doing it. Each time Carlaude has done this I have asked him/her not to do so. Below is the history.

• 1. User:Carlaude split one of my comments into another discussion thread at Talk:Christian ethics. I requested here that not be done again, noting that it is normally against Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
• 2. After this request, Carlaude again split one of my comments into a new thread; my comment lost the original context.
• 3. At User talk:Carlaude, I reminded Carlaude for a second time that this was not normally allowed, and requested that editing of my comments stop.
• 4. User:Carlaude summarily reverted/deleted my warning and request without comment.

After three violations, two of which occurred after requests to stop, it is clear that User:Carlaude will not listen to these requests ... at least from me. I request an administrator intervene in whatever manner she/he sees fit. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm - some people will "refactor" comments, but should stop if asked to. Most things posted on a user's talk page can be removed by the user, so point 4 is not really an issue as I see it. Has the behavior stopped after the second request? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought that the following at WP:Talk applied to deletion as well: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" (emphasis in original). That deletion on Carlaude's talk page took place after the second request. The second request was actually what was deleted from his/her talk page. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IP very upset with warnings

• 94.4.182.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• RI:SE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

From the comments made by the IP, it would appear that someone else is using his/her computer to edit articles adding "It was a stupid show, hosted by a bunch of trendies.". After the first revert and warning by me (via Huggle), I got this message user talk:Jim1138#Thanks_for_ruining_my_day.3D. I left a talkback on his page after my reply on mine. Another change was placed on RI:SE and I warned him a second time (for a total of four warnings by others and myself). He added a "Harassment" section to his page. I am not looking for a any judgement or banning. As he threatened to call the police, I am concerned if I should do something. Any comments? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. Don't respond and report it to WP:AIV if the account vandalises again. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Danjel and school AfDs/improvements

• Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User has continually affirmed the notability of primary schools. That would be perfectly fine...except that he has repeatedly called users who disagree with him "incompetent", "flat-out wrong" and "trolls". This when Purplebackpack89 cites WP:COMMONOUTCOMES vis-a-vis schools; a perfectly acceptable reference that has been reaffirmed numerous times. True, common outcomes can be ignored, but it's a bit of a stretch (to say nothing of being quite incivil) for someone who's ignoring common outcomes to call someone who's abiding by them "flat-out wrong'. Danjel also suggested Purplebackpack89 follow BEFORE...on articles he didn't even AfD. Danjel would also bring up Purplebackpack89's stances on deletion in discussions where his stance was tangential (for example here and elsewhere; note that the so-called "non-existent" consensus is actually what is said at COMMONOUTCOMES); virtually always to mock or berate them. Another issue is his attitude at school articles that are being improved; this often with Users Fmph and Epeefleche. This involves content disputes over the use of maintenance tags for articles that need to be improved. The most recent example of this was Lyneham Primary School. Another user had first suggested this be brought to dispute resolution, but an admin informed me that WQA was the better place. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggested course of action I am looking for is for it to be mandated that Danjel be asked to step away from school-related articles, and maybe Wikipedia in general, for a time; and perhaps also that he be forced into mentorship Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this recommended action. Danjel is a helpful and courteous editor. He has been responding in sheer frustration at the school AfD campaign launched by Epeefleche and supported by Purplebackemperor, both of whom mistakenly seems to be of the opinion that all primary schools are non-notable which is not at all the case. Epeefleche nominated over 150 schools for AfD within the space of a few weeks. The sheer scale of the nominations has created endless problems for Wikiproject Schools. Regular editors have not had time to contribute properly to the debates and notable schools have been deleted in the process because editors haven't had the time to add the appropriate sources to articles. The discussions can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Dahliarose (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, going out of his way to slight me, as he has repeatedly done (there are edits where he starts talking about something else, then digresses into criticizing me or Epeefleche) doesn't suggest "helpful and courteous". Also, my name isn't "Purplebackemperor" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkativerata

User:Mkativerata referred to me as as wikipedia's class clown in an edit summary. I have attempted to discuss and resolve it on his talkpage but he has just repeated the comment. I find his references to me as "a clown" and " a class clown" to be demeaning and rude and would appreciate some assistance towards a resolution here. I have notified the user - Youreallycan 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As the user has added - retired to his talkpage, I will put this On hold awaiting any return or not as the case may be. Youreallycan 00:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata was a valuable editor and admin and it's a shame he felt compelled to turn in his tools and leave over this nonsense. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself - as this nonsense is such a minor issue - that the user was requested, in good faith to resolve on the first, most minor level of dispute resolution, perhaps there are other issues that we are unaware of, and this minor issue is not the reason behind his actions at all. - clearly calling me a class clown is not a reason, or could ever result in such recriminations and repercussions to require anyone to request removal of their advanced privileges and retire. Youreallycan 00:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the exchange that lead to all this, it strikes me that there's plenty of blame to go around. I would encourage Youreallycan to see his/her own role in the exchange, and to review WP:BRD as well as WP:3RR and WP:EDIT. --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the motivation was, but User:Hipocrite opened this section on Mkativerata's Talk page before YRC complained about the clown comment. Like 28bytes, I have trouble believing that Mkativerata would retire because of YRC's complaint (I wouldn't have characterized it as "nonsense", though).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can we close this please. In addition to the above, the user has requested removal of their admin bits and there is no need to work out who was right and who was wrong. Whatever the cause, the best thing now would be to quietly close discussions like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)