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)

You are confusing my complaint ( Disregarding my opinions because of my religious affiliation ) with the other complaint. Please don't mix them up. yisraeldov (talk) 10:17, 12 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)

Per WP:OWNTALK Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages ... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. If the behavior continues I will leave a note on his/her talk page. Hopefully the issue is reolved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, many thanks!! --Airborne84 (talk) 05:48, 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)

Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry for getting your name wrong. I shouldn't edit Wikipedia late at night! I've now corrected the spelling. I've looked at the Lyneham Primary School article and I think you've completely misinterpreted the situation. Epeefleche's edits to this article were not at all constructive. He added a ref improve tag to an article which already had 11 references, far more references than many other articles on Wikipedia. The other editors on the article quite rightly reverted his edits. It is not surprising that Danjel got somewhat annoyed, especially as Epeefleche's entire edit history currently consists of tagging articles and nominating articles for deletion, often with only minutes between each edit. It would be more helpful if there were other editors like Danjel who spend time adding content and sources to articles. Dahliarose (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, it seems to me that you've ignored the whole WQA process which is listed in the table near the top. You're not going to get what you want, which is having Danjel topic banned, since WQA "is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour". To me you wanting Danjel to be topic banned or wanting him to have a Wikibreak, seem more like removing someone to make the AfD noms more successful. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not much here for me to respond to. Purplebackpack89, you've quite failed to represent the situation neutrally. And you have gone further to suggest bans from school related discussions (i.e., the primary area in which I edit, according to my userpage), from wikipedia generally and asked that I be "forced" into mentorship in direct contravention of the text at the very top of this page which states: "Avoid initiating a request if: ... You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." That you have completely stepped out of the guidelines of WQA and the measures you call for are outrageously disproportionate for anything less than severe disruption to the project shows that you have, from the get go, acted in bad faith.

To respond to your complaint about my view of the way you interpret WP:OUTCOMES (that you also raised at DRN: [14]): (1) WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy; (2) WP:OUTCOMES details the outcomes that have occured in the past and therefore talks of consensus in the past, and Consensus Can Change; (3) Your stance, that you say above derives from WP:OUTCOMES that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" is a "flat out" incorrect understanding of the sentence: "most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" (quoted from WP:OUTCOMES#Schools; emph. added) where, you will note, that it does not say anything about the notability of primary schools; (4) Most of this has been said before when I tried to discuss this (and other issues with your conduct at AfD) with you at your talkpage ([15]); (5) and, yet, despite all of this you still persist in your belief that that sentence given above equates to saying that all primary schools are non-notable; and (6) because you vote '''delete''' at all Primary School AfDs on the basis of this completely flat out wrong interpretation, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue in your conduct at AfD. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, this just illustrates the problem. The problem is that you keep saying I'm completely wrong and incompetent over and over again. You respond to my thread by saying...I'm completely wrong and incompetent. That completely illustrates the problem, as a) I'm not completely wrong and incompetent (recall that many editors have agreed with me in Epeefleche's AfDs; and that <<10% have been closed as keep, indicating that consensus hasn't changed); and b) even if I was, you shouldn't be bringing it up hither and yon like you're doing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right that "this" illustrates the problem. It's been pointed out to you ad nauseam that your interpretation of WP:OUTCOMES is fundamentally flawed and that this impacts on the process at school related AfDs. So this is a situation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

There's nothing further for me to say here. There's nothing productive to be gained from continuing to participate. So, again, I'm out. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:03, 12 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)

There is no justification for personal attacks. YRC is not responsible for any other editor's actions. Mkativerata's decision to retire is theirs and on one else's. Nobody Ent 12:27, 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)

Dispute on German cruiser Emden

Moved from ANI per (tentative) consensus it belongs here Nobody Ent 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise problems of inappropriate behaviour are not normally aired here, but this problem concerns one of Wikipedia’s sysops. Sysops are fully familiar with Wikipedia’s code of conduct so I have bypassed Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance and come here directly.

On 20/21 January User:Parsecboy nominated two articles for Good Article. On 5 February I volunteered to do the GA Review on both articles. Both articles contained numerous minor errors and omissions; I noted these on the Review pages and Parsecboy repaired them. See Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1 and Talk:SMS Nürnberg (1916)/GA1

I also used the Review pages to make suggestions and point out problems that I saw as worthy of repair in order to elevate the articles to GA status. Parsecboy has been reluctant to discuss my suggestions and has become increasingly diverted away from the task in hand. When I saw THIS post I realised Parsecboy was unlikely to help me resolve one particular problem so I decided to ask for a second opinion. I left a message for Sturmvogel 66, asking for his assistance. Sturmvogel 66 is one of the co-ordinators for the WikiProject Military History and has not been involved with German cruiser Emden. Here is the thread I started for Sturmvogel 66: User talk:Sturmvogel 66#Request for assistance.

Parsecboy has become increasingly angry at my attempts to resolve the problem I see. He used Sturmvogel’s Talk page to leave an angry message for me: diff

The GA process does not run on anger and intimidation. I am a volunteer. My objective is the same as Parsecboy’s – to raise these two articles to GA. I would appreciate it if one of Parsecboy’s fellow sysops or admins would leave him a message reminding him of the things he should be aware of about the GA process, but has apparently forgotten. Dolphin (t) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you would stop playing games, we can have a perfectly polite discussion. If that's not something you can do, then I suggest we clear the board and let someone else review the articles. I refuse to entertain someone who apparently has no grasp of Wikipedia's core content and requires blatant violations of WP:V and WP:OR to satisfy their requests. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

*blink* That little piece of WP:ABF is really what you want to reply with here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed out the policy problems of what Dolphin is insistent I change, and s/he has consistently failed to address them. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if Dolphin has behaved badly (I haven't looked at the evidence in enough detail) you should still be responding as calmly and courteously as possible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The diff you provided does not reflect proper conduct for an admin or any editor. However unless Parsecboy has used his admin tools to gain advantage during this dispute, then this is not an admin matter and should be raised via WQA. Manning (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, on both counts. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, the 13:04, 10 Feb edit clearly rises to the level for which civility/disruption warnings are given. We simply cannot speak to each other in that manner. Further², Dolphin51's opening of this thread was a thing of beauty: clear, concise, courteous. *tips hat* Is there further backstory at all? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Caveat:Have not looked further than those diffs yet.

How about this:

1. I point out that what Dolphin is requiring is OR
2. Dolphin completely ignores it
3. I state as much a second time
4. Lecture about dealing with contradictory sources, nevermind that there is no contradictory source, and still no comment on citing his claim
5. I point that out
6. Dolphin goes to Sturmvogel with a similarly one-sided summary like the one above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a moment and re-read those diffs as if they were someone else's, and see if they match the descriptions you've just given? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point to where Dolphin engages with the issue of original research?

His objection is that the Germans could not have installed a degaussing coil on the ship between the outbreak of World War II and the operation the ship participated in on 3 September 1939, since Wikipedia states the war began on 3 September. Nevermind that many historians use 1 September as the start date, which easily explains the imagined discrepancy, because Dolphin summarily dismisses it. What this dispute boils down to is that Dolphin thinks Williamson is wrong and wants me to change it, despite not having any sources to back it up. How is that not violating OR and V? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What you're calling "original research" is actually good GA review. He's correct, that the 1st-to-3rd chronology is a remarkable claim. Remarkable claims require a higher standard of evidence. He's actually being very calm and kind in this discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)

Please, do explain how requesting that something be changed without a source is anything but OR? In what manner is it a remarkable claim? It's the installation of a degaussing coil, not a complete overhaul. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict)There are five WP pillars and editing requires balancing all of them. WP:V does not mean we print untrue things (as the perennial discussion on WT:V regarding rephrasing "verfiability not truth" indicates). Dolphin appears to be trying to reconcile different sources; when it became clear Dolphin and Parsecboy were just not going to agree, they requested help from additional editors, which is the right thing to do per consensus. This [16] is the wrong thing to do per our civility pillar. It's okay to disagree and strongly argue a position but personal attacks are wrong. If parsecboy truly thinks the situation is unsalvageable then a new reviewer for the article should be appointed.

• Parsecboy, will you strike your personal attacks coments from sturmvogel's talk page?
• Dolphin, would you be willing to withdraw from the GA and let another reviewer finish? Nobody Ent 13:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Swearing =/= personal attack. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The swearing shows that you aren't being calm and courteous, but the swearing isn't what makes it a personal attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Explain where I insulted Dolphin or made threats. I'm all ears. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • This diff -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Again, where did I insult or threaten him? Where did I use an ad hominem attack? Perhaps you need some familiarization with WP:NPA#WHATIS. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm well aware as to what a personal attack is, "Have you ever even read WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:CITE" and "Fail the article, I don't really care. I will immediately re-nominate it so someone with a basic grasp of Wikipedia content policies can review it." stand out to me as being a personal attack, and "Too fucking bad, you don't make the rules. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit." is certainly a violation of our civility policy, one of the pillars of the project.
            • PS from your link These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Dolphin repeatedly ignored my objections and carried on as if I had not made them. The issue then becomes that Dolphin was either playing games or can't handle discussion effectively. I doubt it's the latter, in which case, WP:SPADE. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't think you have understood Dolphin's, quite legitimate, concerns. The policy is not as black and white as you think it is.

We all make mistakes from time to time, I think User:Nobody Ent's suggestion above that you both take a step back from this is the most productive way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do understand Dolphin's concern, and it is not legitimate. We as editors do not get to decide what is and is not correct, at least so far as only one source is concerned. That is a textbook definition of original research. If there was a contradictory source, then yes, we would have to exercise some editorial discretion, but that is not the case here. All we have is Dolphin's insistence that Williamson is wrong, with nothing substantive to base it on.

I don't have a problem with disengaging and starting from scratch on a new review. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree on whether Dolphin's concerns are legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin made a proposal which sounds reasonable to me. He suggests switching the order of the first two sentences. This proposal does not challenge the current sources in any way (to my interpretation). Since the exact date of the modification ("After the outbreak of World War II") is currently rather vague in comparison to the precise date of 3 September 1939, I believe that the poposal would adequately address both positions in this dispute. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is Williamson puts the degaussing coil before the minelaying operation in the text. That doesn't support reversing the order. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether the discussion here is to resolve the content dispute, or the complaint over Parsecboy's incivility. I have no view on the former but the latter is disturbing. The question of him being an admin is moot as he is not using admin powers - except that if these diffs had occurred prior to an RfA I have no doubt it would have failed. Admins (I speak as one) SHOULD meet higher standards of behaviour. Parsecboy has failed to meet them, or even to recognise that he has failed (which is almost worse). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Parsecboy is saying that I am insisting on inserting original research; and that I am insisting Williamson is wrong. I want to make it clear that I am doing neither. Wikipedia is opposed to original research, and so am I. Williamson is one of the few sources we have on the subject and we must work with the information available.

Wikipedia must present its information in the best way possible. It must not only be grammatically correct and of sound syntax, it must be arranged in such a way that it can be read easily and well, is not ambiguous and does not confuse the reader. I am looking for someone with whom to have a dialogue about the best way to present the information we have about the Emden. At present, I think the information is not presented in the best way because we don’t know the exact date on which the degaussing coil was installed. Insisting that the coil was installed on 1, 2 or 3 September is probably original research because we simply don’t know the date. Apparently, Williamson says nothing more than it was installed after the outbreak of the war. A problem I have had with Parsecboy is that he doesn’t seem to do dialogue; he seems only to do angry monologue. I was hoping to have a dialogue with someone on this subject but so far that someone hasn’t appeared. I have exercised my mind on the matter and I can say that my difficulty with the current wording would disappear if either of the following forms were used. I’m sure there are others that can be found, but these are two I have found:

1. Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) After the outbreak of the war a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)
   
2. Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) Prior to that, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)
   

Dolphin (t) 04:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I do plenty of dialogue - it seems you are the one who doesn't. I have repeatedly brought up the objection that what you're asking me to do is OR, and this is the first time you have engaged the point.

Here are the problems with your suggestions:

1. As I have noted elsewhere, Williamson presents the material (the degaussing coil installation and the minelaying operation) in the order I have it in the article - he's the only source that mentions the degaussing coil, so there's no support for reversing the order.
2. Williamson specifically mentions that the degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of war. To leave that out that would be omitting relevant details.

Changing something to contradict what a source says without another source to justify the change, or to omit information solely because one editor thinks it unlikely is a textbook definition of OR. I honestly don't know why this continues to be a problem. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil and Unhelpful Conversation in MMS Talk Page - Need Help

• User:AndyTheGrump
• Miracle Mineral Suppliment

Greetings, I hope I am in the right place. I am hoping to defuse a volatile situation on the MMS talk page. Being newer to editing on wikipedia, I have made many mistakes myself in the past few days, including unknowingly taking part in edit warring and adding fuel to the fire of arguments. I have officially apologized on the page, and have attempted to turn the discussion into something more constructive, though it appears that there are still a few whom have taken it as their personal goal to be insulting, disruptive and controlling of the information on the page. In particular, AndytheGrump has continued to use rude and uncivil language, and refuses to look at the subject from any view point other than his own. There are others as well, in the past and in the current conversation, who refuse to consider any alternative points of view and instead of contributing, they are simply reverting the page back to it's unsatisfactory condition.

I understand the controversy of this subect, but this sort of behavior seriously undermines what wikipedia is all about, and as a newbie editor (but no reader), I find that it makes it very discouraging to want to try and help out. I would prefer to avoid banning or any other serious situations, especially since I have up to now, been a part of the problem.

Can anyone help out? It would be nice to have a moderator or admin be on the talk page, to help defuse this sort of behavior so that the discussion can become constructive and relevant again. I really don't want to add anymore fuel to the flames, nor do I want to continue anymore disruptive behavior myself. So if anyone knows what can be done, or where I should go with this issue, I would surely appreciate your help. Thanks Bema Self (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndytheGrump is no stranger to these pages. Could you please provide diffs of the behaviour? We're not admins, we're only editors, but we can offer support. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the reason I would like diffs is that I've checked the talk page and I don't see anything that is worth reporting or acting on, but I could be missing something. The fact that he's removed the comments of others, and doing so without comment, is the only really bad offence that I see. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for offering help. Being new, I'd like to resolve this without going higher up if that's possible. Can you tell me though, what are "diffs"? Do you mean the specific ways in which he's been uncivil?

There is this statement that he left after I attempted to site WB:BITE

"Then stop trying to sell toxic snake oil.

I would like to cite WP:NEWCOMERYEAHRIGHTJIMHUMBLESTOOGEMORELIKE. I'll choose biting 'newcomers' over allowing crackpots to push bleach as a cure for AIDS, any day of the week. I have morals, unlike you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) "

It looks like I made an error, as there is another comment, though not by AndytheGrump, but by Andy Dingley, is there a chance he's using another account? It was in the same fashion as thegrumps other comments and says:

""Research?" You mean "Drink bleach, if it doesn't kill you, it might kill something else more useful"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I might have taken this one out of context, but I feel rather demeaned about this comment, because it suggests that I am not worthy of citing wikipedia sources because they don't fit in with his beliefs.

"You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles on notable subjects because of expressed concerns over neutrality - though your understanding of what constitutes 'neutrality' is in any case contrary to that of Wikipedia policy. And neither do we consider attempts to evade our policy on appropriate sourcing regarding claimed medical products (see WP:MEDRS) to be a legitimate 'compromise'. MMS is a notable example of a bogus 'medicine' that has never been proven to do anything other than empty people's pockets - except when it makes them ill. This is what the sources say, so this is what our article is going to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)"

It only seems to continue the more I try to inject any reason into the situation.

My other issue, is that I feel like I'm being surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves. AndytheGrump, Novangelis and Six Words refuse to see reason on the subject. I don't sell MMS, I don't promote it or encourage it's use. I am simply a regular reader and fan of wikipedia, because I can usually find comprehensive and unbiased information on whatever subject I am looking for. AndytheGrump, Novangelis and Six Words, keep trying to cite the NPOV, but at the same time they are violating it by not allowing even the simplest of changes to the article unless it fits in with their POV. Even just reorganizing the info seems to be a crime, and no matter how well I try to play by the Wikipedia rule book, it seems that I can do anything to get even the smallest compromise. By WB:COMPREHENSIVE and WB:CENSOR, shouldn't we have all the information about a subject in a wiki page regardless of our personal opinions on the particular subject?

I have tried to offer that we delete the page because of the imbalance and horrible formatting, or that we redirect or merge the page to pages like the one for Chlorine Dioxide which already has a small blurb about MMS. I have searched for various experimental uses of Chlorine Dioxide (MMS when activated), that were from reliable sources, and they still chastised what I put in there, only citing their beliefs that it shouldn't added because they perceive that to be in promotion of MMS.

Not to mention that there has only been one recent event where one of them added a small section to further the one sided bias, there has been no good faith attempts from any of them, to work with the information I provided. They just keep reverting it, which got me into my first edit war, which I stopped and attempted to talk it out with them, which has so far done no good. They keep accusing me of wanting to sell the product, when I have no affiliation with it. I'm on the fence about it. I can't say it's not dangerous, nor is there any proof it is dangerous. I just want the article to reflect that.

Is there anything I can do to help gain a compromise? I feel like the MMS article seriously undermines the corner stones of wikipedia's values to be about information and not bias. I feel horribly out numbered and frustrated, cause I don't know who to talk to or where to turn on the subject. They are being very unreasonable and unhelpful about it.

If I'm in the wrong place with these complaints or maybe I'm viewing the situation wrong, please let me know. I don't want to give up, as everyone else has done. I really feel it's worth making sure wikipedia stays as unbiased as possible, but it seems like someone has gamed the system on that page, maybe not on purpose, but that's what it looks like. I'd hate to think that would be allowed on other pages to. Any ideas? --Bema Self (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bema Self has failed to notify me of this thread, as is clearly stated at the top of the page - I only saw this by chance. WG, you say I've removed other's comments without explanation - I don't recall doing this, but if I did, and it wasn't an obvious case of reverting vandalism, I apologise, as this is clearly inappropriate. I'd note however that there has been a long stream of 'contributors' posting on the relevant talk page, all seemingly intent on promoting this ineffective and potentially-dangerous 'miracle', and all either unaware of basic Wikipedia policy, or intent on subverting it. Several have been proven to be in gross breach of WP:COI policy, and none have seen the slightest interest in complying with WP:MEDRS regarding claims on the effectiveness of this miraculous application of toxic industrial bleach as a cure for AIDS, cancer, toothache, the common cold, and no doubt any other affliction its proponents can think of. If I have been my usual grumpy self on the talk page, and this is seen as less than helpful, I'd ask that other uninvolved contributors step in by helping keep the article in compliance with policy. This 'supplement' isn't just ineffective snake-oil it is downright dangerous, and may very well have been directly responsible for the death of at least one individual. [17][18] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note. Bema Self writes that "there has only been one recent event where one of them added a small section to further the one sided bias" - this 'one sided bias' was addition of material (not by me) regarding the death of the woman in Vanuatu. Since when has reporting the fatal consequences of bleach-drinking been 'bias'? I think this attempt to misrepresent the reality of the situation is explanation enough for my grumpiness (though admittedly I can usually find one as needed anyway ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not having yet notified you AndytheGrump, I only just posted the request for help a little while ago, and then it took me a while to write out the reply to GW question. And as for WB:COI, how is it that I have a conflict of interest? You can't assume everyone who wants the article to show both sides, has a COI. In what ways do I need to prove that I do not have a COI so you will know I am not jim humble or any one of his followers? And I don't want to go against the WP:MEDRS, while I also want the article to comply with WP:COMPREHENSIVE and WP:CENSOR. There is perfect reason and logic in what I am trying to achieve and you and the others in that talk page are running a monopoly due to personal opinion, not objectivity. Why can't their be a compromise? We don't have to promote a thing, as that is not the intention of wikipedia. --Bema Self (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Why can't their be a compromise?" WP:MEDRS. We don't compromise basic policy, end of story. In any case, this isn't an appropriate place to be arguing about such matters. You claimed that I've been "Uncivil and Unhelpful" - the only person who has commented so far seems to think that this isn't the case (or at least, it isn't the case enough to matter). We are discussing the promotion of potentially-lethal unproven 'cures', and I see no reason to let petty issues regarding 'civility' divert us from the real issue - which is that, COI or not, you seemed keen on 'balancing' the reliably-sourced evidence that MMS is dangerous with dubious anecdotal evidence and hype (diffs: [19][20]). Now, having failed to spin the article your way, you seem to be arguing for its deletion, on the bizarre basis that "By slamming MMS, you only encourage people to try it".[21]. I'll leave it to others to comment on what this implies regarding your 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here to figure out if there is a way to resolve the conflicts going on with the conversation on MMS talk page. As you so pointedly showed, this is not the place to discuss what is already being argued over in the talk page. I am here because it seems that you and the other regular watchers on that page refuse to even consider trying to achieve improving the article or the NPOV on the grounds your POV, and are being uncivil, including "Civil POV pushing", which is just as demeaning.

According to the five pillars of wikipedia known as WP:IGNORE (which includes ALL rules and guidelines), there can be compromise on basic policies and guidelines and we should strive for it. No one owns any wikipedia pages, anyone is allowed to edit and contribute, no rules are set in stone and no one should be made to feel as though their work is pointless because it doesn't fit in with someone elses opinion of the topic or interpretation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.

That being said, I came here for third party opinions about how this dispute can be resolved, and that is what I am going to continue to seek. It is my hope that others that are not already involved in the conversation may step up and offer some help in getting some civil and constructive conversation going on in the talk page so that the page can be improved and the talk page can stop going around in circles attacking everyone. It is clear that there have been others whom have also attempted to do the same (not including those only out to further the promotion of the product), and it just keeps going on in the same endless circle. It's a long term dispute that clearly isn't going to be resolved regardless of how much logic, verifiability or neutrality that I or anyone else can offer. I have all sorts of other ideas for improving the page, that have nothing to do with promoting it or violating any policies, but I feel it's useless to attempt to put them in until the issue of civility is resolved.

That is why I came to this conflict resolution, to get help for a long term problem that should be able to be resolved without so much hostility. --Bema Self (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a 'conflict resolution' page. Issues regarding article content are not dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: For instructions on diffs, see "Include diffs that show the situation" at the top of the page. There are other instructions there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Gorlitz. --Bema Self (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hope I am adding these right.... I feel that while the other contributors may be acting in good faith to "protect" others or to make "point" about the dangers of MMS, that they are refusing to see any potential ways to improve the article and are being rude about it.

[22] [23] ::::This is the one where I added fuel to the fire when I shouldn't have, and while I don't excuse my own behavior, the comment wasn't helpful either and I feel it should be noted [24] and [25]

Did I provide this diffs right? I followed the instructions on the page for newbies... Also, should I include the other contributors in the users section at the top of this request for resolution? And should I add diffs from older conversations on the talk page that have discouraged others from attempting to contribute to the page in good faith and have been treated in the same manner I have? --Bema Self (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have provided two diffs to edits made by individuals not mentioned in the complaint - I suggest you notify them of this thread, along with anyone else you are going to comment about. In any case, only one of the four you cite could remotely be construed as personal rudeness - instead we have repeatedly explained why your attempts to provide a synthetic 'balance' to the article are against Wikipedia policy. The first diff, which I suppose might be seen as impolite, was in response to your repeated earlier attacks on the integrity of other contributors ("It makes me wonder if this page isn't left up, not for it's value, but simply as a fish hook to lure in unsuspecting people who have no idea the kind of nonsense they're going to have to deal with in order to try and help out." "That's redundant, childish, and only going to result in the continuation of problems with this page."[26] "Is that the best rebuttal you have andy [Dingley]? Really? lol" [27] "I would like to cite WB:DBN, because I truly feel that those of you whom have been on this page long term, especially Andy [which Andy?] and Novangelis, whom are not benefiting this conversation or the page with insults to the information and zero objectivity." [28]). The simple facts are that you have had multiple contributors telling you the same thing, and you have either ignored them, or replied with personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)