Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive112

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 7 November 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Griefers keep messing with historical article

The article about Vietnam People's Air Force has people with bare IP addresses going in and reverting referenced information to unsourced, and likely wildly exagerrated numbers about aircraft inventory. Is there SOMEONE who can put a lock in the article, semi-protected I guess, so this can be stopped? Openskye (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Forum Shopping and antagonistic behaviour

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – AN/I initiated Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Forum_Shopping.2C_Disrupting_Talk_Pages.2C_Failure_To_Assume_Good_Faith... Gerardw (talk)

As I was inexperienced back then (a week ago or so), I thought that putting arguments on different talk pages related to the discussion would help in getting more discussion on the topic. However, I saw my mistake and eventually linked back my discussion of 2 different questions on different concerns to 2 talk pages where the discussion is supposed to take place. Now i'm accused of forum shopping ...

And as i have noticed, several users have been really antagonistic towards me in general. Maybe it's the fact that my posts are too long, but that doesn't mean they have to bash my arguments with inappropriate response, I hope someone look into this and tell me what could I do. Thank You. Redefining history (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is clear: Most people are opposed to redefining history. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

I haven't looked at your contributions, but I'd be glad to give you an opinion if you could provide some diffs of what you're talking about. And HH might have been playing that one for a laugh, but he's right. Your username might be inspiring some suspicion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue that people have isn't because of your account name or that you like esports. It's because the first thing you did when you started editing was to create several pages that are questionable on an individual basis and when they were all nominated for deletion, you negated their arguments and simply said you'd outlive them, or else re-create the articles after being deleted. When people come across that, they don't generally give many second chances. I wouldn't say this is an issue of people being antagonistic, as most people don't automatically decide to start a witch hunt for people, simply because of their usernames.
In addition, it probably wasn't the best idea to recruit people from the forums to further your cause. Just saying. DarthBotto talk•cont 06:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've lost count but he has taken part in somewhere around 15 different conversations about the same sources at this point. His edits are highly disruptive such as this one where he copied a massive wall of text into an RFC [1], the first reply here sums up the situtuation nicely. [2]. He has however not slowed down one bit, his behaviour on IRC was summed up here [3]. At this point the editor has been told the same thing dozens if not literally close to 100 times. He is arguing from ideology and out to prove us all wrong on his campaign to bring justice to the world on behalf of "Esports athletes". I would love to provide difs of everything but in a week this editor has managed to rack up hundreds of edits all on various pages all about the same sources for the same topic. He was warned last night to stop creating new topics on the subject and look here we are again. I feel at this point there is little left to do but ask for a topic ban. Ridernyc (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:HuskyHuskie

Resolved

--Senra (Talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just about had it with this editor. I'm one of those people that when I see an article with no sources (for example), I will quickly affix an {{unref}} tag (or a {{refimprove}} tag if more than one section of an article is without sources). Now, other users may come across the tags, disagree, and then remove them (which is fine; not everyone is going to agree with everything you do), but...starting around here (which stemmed from this), this editor has basically been following me around and removing tags I placed; not only that, but s/he is leaving very discourteous edit summaries along with them. I took him/her to task about it, to no avail.

Afterwards, s/he continued to leave comments on my talk page, in threads with uninvolved editors, in a manner that almost suggests that s/he is trying to start a WikiBattle. I told him/her to leave me alone, which s/he said s/he would do, but eventually s/he started doing it again. S/he eventually stopped again after I warned him/her I would take the matter to an admin, but... s/he soon went back to his/her old tricks (apparently since I told him/her to stay off my talk page, s/he is now berating me in edit summaries instead).

Basically, all I want to do is place a maintenance tag and improve an article without this user disputing everything I do (and attacking me). I didn't try discussing it on his/her talk page this time because I figured it wouldn't be right to post on his/her talk page when I told him/her to stay off my talk page. Would someone please get him/her off my back? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from improving articles. Placing tags is not improving them. In any event, there's no evidence of HuskyHuskie following you around -- your recent edit summary contains many "tags" but the example you cite above is from May. Gerardw (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you not read all the diffs I added? Maybe the first few are from May, but the most recent ones are from a few days ago. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
As might be expected, there are two sides to this story. But my short version goes something like this: Erpert is an "editor" whose tags I've occasionally disagreed with, and when I have attempted to discuss the matter with him, he complains that he is being harassed. I make no claims to being a perfect gentleman, but my actions--including multiple good faith attempts at discussions over these differences--have always been in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia; but as best I can tell, Erpert is either disinterested in or incapable of rational discourse. One more quick point: the claim that I have been "following [Erpert] around" is ridiculous; since my first interaction with him in late May, according to his edit summaries he has placed approximately over 190 tags (not an excessive number, I hasten to add), and I have touched upon probably 5-10 of these.This is hardly stalking behaviour. Now, to the particulars . . .
While I will add diffs below, if someone really wants to know what is going on here, a good understanding can be gained by reading this section, which I have lifted off of Erpert's talk page and placed into my user space in case he realizes how embarassing his responses are and subsequently deletes the section. This section shows me following up on a point raised by another editor (what Erpert above calls "threads with uninvolved editors"), trying quite diligently to talk through and reason with Erpert, and it also shows his blatant refusals to consider anything I say. (Also on his user page, in the sections below, you will find less decorous examples of my behaviour, such as sarcastic criticism of his wanton tagging, and another section where I once again patiently tried to make my point, but did so after promising to stay off his page [Hey, it was weeks later, and I really had forgotten.])
Anyway, another editor, User:Muhandes, had pointed out his concern that Erpert was placing a tag inappropriately, possibly because he misunderstood the reasoning behind the tag (in this case, WP:PEACOCK), and Muhandes further suggested that Erpert provide more helpful edit summaries[4] (probably around 80% of Erpert's edit summaries simply read "tag"). Anyway, my feelings about Erpert's work were similar, and I tried, really, really tried, to explain how his work comes across to other editors.
Let me share a few examples to show how unhelpful these edits by Erpert have been.
  • In this edit, he places an NPOV tag at the top of the article. It states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." Why did Erpert place this tag? What did he see? I go to the talk page and find that he says . . . absolutely nothing. No post back then, no post since then. Ahh, but surely he left a clue as to his thinking in the edit summary? Sure enough, instead of his typical (tag) edit summary, we have . . . (Sigh...). That's it—Sigh.. So what are the problems? We don't know, and instead of explaining his tag, he just indicates contempt for the editors who were there before him (you know, the ones who actually wrote something). And this is just a single typical example of Erpert's work.
  • In this tagging, Erpert claims that there is a concern with possible WP:OR. The tag reads, in part, This section may contain original research. . . More details may be available on the talk page. Now I do recognize that "may" means that it is an option for the tagger to include "more details" on the talk page, but given the fact that the section did at the time of the tagging, contain five sources (that's five sources in the section), it seemed to me that wikiquette might call for an explanation of what the specific concerns are. How are we supposed to know what he is concerned with, and, not knowing that, how are we supposed to improve it?
Accordingly, I attempted to discuss this Erpert, but he ordered me off his talk page
Now, despite his comments, I have not been stalking Erpert, and have only occasionally come across his work. When I do, problems like those cited have been rife. Yet I have only reverted those that I considered the most troubling, and each and every time I have done so I have left a detailed explanation either on the talk page,[5] in my edit summary,[6] or both. I only wish that Erpert would a) do the same, and b) in the spirit of Wikipedia, discuss such differences of opinion.
Frankly, I have no idea what Erpert is thinking when he does this. I cannot tell if he is sincere in trying to improve the encyclopedia (though that seems most likely to me) or if he just enjoys seeing tags appears under his power to make visible changes to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I just wish he would be more considerate. Yes, Erpert, I really said that. You see, while my tone occasionally devolves into the uncivil, I'm always willing to talk with those whom I agree. That willingness to discuss our disagreements, as the ancient Greeks would have told you, constitutes a cornerstone to civility. And you'll always find me standing on that corner, waiting to talk. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Erpert? I don't practice reciprocity in talk page bans. Though you have banned me from yours, you are always welcome to come talk on mine. I've never been afraid of discussion (hell, I'm not even afraid of "personal attacks"; my mother taught me well.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Lazy-ass editors"? "Sit on a broomstick and spin"? Going on and on about how I won't make it to being an admin (which I don't want to be anyway)? How is that being civil? And nowhere in WP:ES does it say that simply stating "tag" is unacceptable (it does say "even a short summary is better than no summary"). And if you aren't stalking me, what do you call it? The diffs I posted proves that you don't just occasionally come across my work. I brought the situation here because I'm starting to take this personally, so you really need to back off. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Your talent for hyperbole is notable. I mentioned the admin thing, if memory serves, in one single post, and even then, I did not claim omniscience; I simply said what it looked like. And you still fail to acknowledge the content of my concerns, that is, what it is that caused me to comment in the first place on your tagging.
It is quite common, Erpert, when an editor notes behaviour by another editor that concerns them, to check out some other diffs and make comments. This I did, what, four months ago? Then, this week, I again saw an edit of yours off my watchlist, one which actually made reference to one of my less than sugary edit summaries last spring. I wasn't stalking you, bud, any more than it is stalking someone to meet them at a party, have an unpleasant conversation, and then run into them at the mall four months later. Get over it.
And while you're at it, you might want to read Gerard's comment above: No one is stopping you from improving articles. Placing tags is not improving them. I'm not opposed to tagging articles, by you or anyone else, but if you do it without making it clear why you are doing it, you're not improving the encyclopedia, you're just littering.
Sometime even your asshole-uncle can have some pretty good advice, but it can be hard to recognize because he's not all warm and motherly. I have tried to talk to you patiently and rationally, but you wouldn't engage. So your already-irritating habit of incomprehensible tagging, combined with your abject refusal to discuss possible other approaches to this practice (which other editors also recognize is not as wonderful as you seem to think it is), simply does not bring out the best in me. HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Deary deary me. Both of you stop it. On the one hand it is true that any edit summary is better than none at all. Help us all Erpert (talk · contribs) please. If you are going to tag an article with a terse summary such as tag then at least take the time to explain your action on that article talk page. On the other hand, you HuskyHuskie (talk · contribs) should calm down. Whilst your tone here remains civil, it is my opinion that it is only just so. I suggest you both take a short break from editing any articles. Then Erpert should take up HuskyHuskie's offer to discuss your differences on HuskyHuskie's talk page. Do let me know how you get on --Senra (Talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying, but...as I said at the beginning, if I place a tag like {{unref}} in an article that doesn't have any references, does that really need an explanation? How is that littering? And I've been using "tag" as an edit summary for years and this is the first time anyone has ever had anything to say about it; thus, I didn't see how it could be a problem. And I have no problem with discussing things, but you have to approach me right (in order to get respect, you have to give respect). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider A (S-train). Having the unref tag sitting there since 2009 hasn't improved the article at all. Disregarding bots, there have been no edits since 2009. I have no reason to doubt the information in the article is incorrect. So what benefit is the unref tag? Gerardw (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
We are all guilty of writing poor edit summaries from time to time. In my case such as [7] and [8] though I do believe I make an effort such as [9], [10], [11] and [12]. I am also in the process of (slowly) preparing an article for major improvements. In this case, I posted a note on the talk page first then added [13] and removed [14] tags in the article—full history. The key I think is moderation (i.e. not too many short summaries) and if someone queries one of my summaries I will explain it --Senra (Talk) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Erpert, your complaint centering on the argument that "if I place a tag like {{unref}} in an article that doesn't have any references, does that really need an explanation?" is either disingenuous or ignorant. I have specifically addressed that matter several times, including here: (emphasis added for this Wikiquette posting)

The History section of this article has had a tag added to it that claims it may have original research. Unfortunately, since the section already has several sources cited (at least five), it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which claims the tagger considers to be original research. There is one statement "Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production." that (appropriately) has a "citation needed" tag on it, but that's not original research-looking, it's lack of sourcing. Frankly, when I see editors whose tagging of articles constitute in the neighborhood of 50% of their total edits, I wonder if they're helping us or not. At the very least, when someone comes along and leaves a nebulous tag like that on an article, I think they should be required to explain what their concern is. Of course, some tags do not need an explanation. For example, if a tag says that an article has "no sources, and indeed, it has none, then I can understand what's the problem. But tagging like this, without leaving an explanation, is just rude and ignorant. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[15]

I have never complained your tags when their purpose was comprehensible and actionable. Even those that I would not place myself, if they actually had any promise at all of eventually improving the encyclopedia, I have left alone. The problem is that you do not appear to have given any thought as to what happens after you plant your drive-by-tag. Other editors are confused and puzzled, and not knowing what to do, they do nothing. And then your tag sits there and sits there and sits there. And sits there. And sits there. That's litter. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Will you stop calling my editing ignorant already? What is it with you? And it isn't litter just because you say it is. In addition, the part of my argument you failed to focus on is that no one seemed to complain about my using "tag" as an edit summary until you came along. Why? Maybe because if they read that and then actually looked at the tag, then they'd know what my problem with the article is. If they disagreed, they'd remove the tag and state why they removed it...without being insulting or smart-alecky. See how simple that is? (BTW, thanks, Senra; at least someone cares where I'm coming from.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is growing tiresome, isn't it? I will endeavour to make this my last post here--a last attempt to open your eyes.
  • The section which uses the word "ignorant" above is from over three months ago. I considered removing the last sentence, but I thought you'd accuse me of editing it to make myself look better, so I left it in. After all, it doesn't help my case that I spoke that way, does it?
  • Your premise that if one merely read the tag you placed, they would understand it, is, as I have said repeatedly, not always true; furthermore in those cases where it is true, I have held my silence. I have only addressed cases where your tags purpose was unclear.
  • If your interpretation of Senra's comments is that they support your side in this matter, then you really need to re-read them. Senra very clearly (and appropriately) chided me for my tone, and has taken you to task for your behaviours. I leave it to others to decide which is the greater concern.
Lastly, Erpert, how do you know that other editors have not removed your tags? It's clear to me from your delayed reaction to my comments (several months) that you do not monitor the tags you place. It appears that you never once noticed my creation of talk page sections explaining my removal of your tags, so I'm guessing you don't watchlist the pages you tag. But let's suppose you're correct, and that no one else has removed your tags. The fact that other editors have not removed your tags in no way supports the conclusion that they understand them or agree with them. It is just as likely that they have chosen to not invest their time in trying to explain to a passionate drive-by tagger why his efforts are often pointless. Think about it. You have sucked up hours of my time because you refused to engage in a normal Wikipedian discussion, and instead have dragged this matter here. I have had plenty of disagreements with other Wikipedians before (I think my personality rather makes that inevitable), but I have never had a conflict last this long? You know why? Because when I post my thoughts on other editor's talk pages, whether they agree or disagree with me, they DISCUSS the issue. I'd estimate that in roughly half the cases, the other editors quickly persuade me of their point of view, and in the other half, I persuade them. Then, guess what happens? We both go off on our merry way, possessed of our new consensus, and we never conflict again. You are the ONLY person I have encountered who was unwilling to even acknowledge that an issue I brought up might be worth considering. And this, despite the fact that I am not the only editor who has questioned your tagging. What I could have and should have done is simply removed those of your tags which were inappropriate without commenting, since apparently it is my comments that have gotten your goat so badly. But instead I invested a boatload of time actually doing what YOU FAILED TO DO--I created a section on the talk page of the article explaining my removal of the tag. Think about that! You created non-actionable tags and failed to create an explanation on the talk page, and in an ultimate sign of courtesy and good faith, I created a section explaining why I was removing your tag! Not once, but every single time!!! I didn't have to do that. Why the heck couldn't you have the courtesy to do the same? Personally I suspect it's because you don't really understand the purpose of the tags very well (as User:Muhandes pointed out), but either way, I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself, to discuss the matter, and in the process, to become a more valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. And the offer is still open. But if you insist upon spending your existence here pissing on every lampost you come across, just because it's there, then fine. Some people, I suppose, do not require sentience to have a happy life. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

severe comment HuskyHuskie (talk · contribs) cease and desist and you too Erpert (talk · contribs). This is indeed getting tiresome. There are over 3,300 words above that could be better spent developing articles. For example, if either or both of you care to pop along to Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements, your writing skills could be used more effectively. You will see I am only looking for 500 words or so. In the meantime, as I stated earlier, both of you should stop editing anywhere on Wikipedia for a few days (to cool down) then come back and discuss this issue on HuskyHuskie's talk page (here) as suggested by HuskyHuskie --Senra (Talk) 12:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I need only 500 words for the Ely, Cambridgeshire#Politics section as described at Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements. I even provided a link to one on-line source to get someone started. Any well cited prose will suffice as I can copy-edit further as necessary --Senra (Talk) 12:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Aside from this, I can easily cool down (as I have been making edits since then). I can also kind of understand why HH's comments are so long (albeit repetitive) because I brought him/her here, but WP:TLDR still applies, I think. S/he also seems to have an issue with WP:IDHT by not seeing my point (which doesn't necessarily mean s/he has to agree with me), but I guess it is what it is sometimes. I guess I'm the most surprised that no one else has ever taken issue with his/her insults in edit summaries. But I can move on from this. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider A (S-train). Having the unref tag sitting there since 2009 hasn't improved the article at all. Disregarding bots, there have been no edits since 2009. I have no reason to doubt the information in the article is incorrect. So what benefit is the unref tag? Gerardw (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually read through all of this because, perhaps like Huskie, I've been bothered by a small number of editors tag-bombing and drive-by-tagging articles to such an extent that the flow and readability of the article is disrupted, and half-decent articles begin to look like something the cat dragged in. I used to end up spending a lot of time hunting up good refs for these articles but as I'm involved in different projects now I try to point out relevant guidelines such as Tag bomb, etc. to editors who query my removing excessive tagging. I try to be polite (doesn't cost anything!), and the "offending" editors seem to understand. IMHO it would help if "tagging" editors took the time to improve the article by editing it instead of tagging it. Hohenloh + 00:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Hohenloh, both for that term and the link to the essay. It comes reasonably close to my feelings on the matter; I may simply include a link to it in the future, instead of being so "bombastic" in my edit summaries. (Yes, I am patting myself on the back for that pun!) HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Southpole1

Southpole1, who has been repeatedly blanking the article's talk page, should be reminded to avoid qualifying another editor's attitude as "obscene" (see here moved to here), particularly when the other editor has been trying to resolve an editing conflict by asking a third opinion.Racconish Tk 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC) ...or writing this editor is "blinded by arrogance".Racconish Tk 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – please keep discussion at WP:DRN Gerardw (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ankitbhatt has repeatedly made aggressive and hostile posts in the DRN discussion thread and on the talk page for Ra. One. He has been give multiple warnings, include extremely direct statements on his talk page. Right now, his attitude is a significant impediment towards resolving the dispute and his last post suggests he intends to continue. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew this would happen. Thank you for doing this. I know that I was always unwanted in Wikipedia. I have always stood up for justice, fairness, proper editing and have tried my level best to keep discussions civil. Nobody has even taken the step to understand my situation. Very well, I officially quit Wikipedia. Whatever the outcome, I am not going to know of it. Thank you very much Ravensfire. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ankitbhatt is a very useful, hardworking and constructive editor. While I think he should avoid using harsh remarks, we all get angry, frustrated and furios sometimes, don't we? Scieberking (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not going there. Ankitbhatt has repeatedly belittled and insulted editors in this dispute. Yes, everyone does get upset at times, but venting belongs outside of WP. Attempting to get your way in a dispute through verbal bullying is not a good thing, and that's exactly what he was trying to do. DRN is trying to help resolve things and get editors through the dispute and back to working together. That does include his view, but when he puts his comments in the middle of personal attacks towards editors he disagrees with, he is making the process difficult at best. He needs to dump his attitude. Every editor in the dispute will be held to the same standard. Ravensfire (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AndyTheGrump

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Andythegrump has four times accused me of conduction a smear campaign against the occupy protests,[16][17][18][19] I have asked him to withdraw these allegations but he has refused and basically accused me again[20] I would appreciate him being told to remove these accusations which are obviously untrue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that TLAM had been engaged in a long-running effort to include material on supposed American Nazi Party support into the Occupy Wall Street article, against a clear consensus, and actually linked an article describing attempts to connect the occupation movement with Nazis as "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests" [21] as supposed justification for including such fringe material, I think that he/she may well find that others may find assertions as to what is 'obviously untrue' less than convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Without finding fault with the reversions, I'll note that "remove POV statement" might be preferable in the future. In any event, it's not possible for ATG to remove content in edit summaries. Gerardw (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
And what of the talk page remarks? Might they be removed? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Andy - lots of stuff gets printed in reliable sources which one may "know" is a smear. The problem is that Wikipedia policies require even "wrong stuff" to get into articles. That said, temperate edit summaries are wiser than intemperate ones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
As was repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia policy does not require the opinions of every fringe political movement to be included in articles, as a matter of appropriate weight, and significance. If TLAM had argued that other fringe groups be mentioned too, his arguments might have seemed a little less skewed - still wrong, but more neutral. Maybe I should have worded the edit summary in question better - but it should be noted that TLAM made the edit in question after being told that there was no consensus, and no justification. In any case, it wasn't me that started using the word 'smear', but media sources - including one that TLAM seems to think justified his position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Best practice" is to avoid using the word no matter who else "started the fight." And the rule is not that the person asking that a source be used must then give every possible source - just that the source proffered be given some weight if it is printed by a reliable source. Our own infallibility is problematic. <g> Collect (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Nazi Party support for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement appears to be widely reported. It is even making news down here in Australia, just today there was a radio report of the anti-semitic nature of the protests (apparently these protesters blame Jewish bankers). Someone needs to persuasively explain to Andy the desirability of maintaining civility. --Nug (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"apparently these protesters blame Jewish bankers". Nope. Apparently there have been isolated cases of this, blown out of all proportion by sections of the media in an attempt to discredit the demonstrators. And note that these same media sources are entirely silent on the widespread condemnation that such antisemitism has received from other participants, and even more silent on the notable presence of Jewish people at the occupations. This is the very essence of a smear campaign. Incidentally, could you let us know which Australian radio station you were referring to, and the nature of the broadcast in which this was reported? Vague assertions are of little use as evidence for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Note : Nug was formerly known as Martintg (talk · contribs) and Tammsalu (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All of which are properly linked, so the reason for noting it here is non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As ATG has refused to remove his personal attacks I have done so, he has responded with further attacks,[22] I really would appreciate someone telling him to stop accusing me of pushing an agenda and conducting a smear campaign. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop doing it then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact there is little or no coverage of the story in news sources. All the sources TLAM presents are from opinion pieces, mostly in publications which are not even rs for news. TLAM should be aware that we are no supposed to provide coverage to stories that the mainstream has ignored, and his long campaign to do so is POV-pushing. "Smear campaign" is just another term for that. TFD (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And another personal attack in edit summary [23] The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are you placing templates on his talk page while the issue is under discussion? It seems to be harrassing. TFD (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Because of this[24] Now that is harassment. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That is a factual statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Andy you need to take a tea break and come back when you're able to be ore civil. LastAngryMan you are misrepresenting policy on the talkpage, you do seem to be pushing an agenda against consensus and I can understand why Andy is frustrated with your behavior. When a broad consensus disagrees with your proposed change and you keep using the same faulty arguments that tends to get annoying and may ultimately come to be seen as a form of disruption of the I didn't hear that kind. Drop the stick both of you and go do something useful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I can name five editors who have said this warrants a line in the article, all i have done is post the number of news and google hits, this is not pushing an agenda nor is it conducting a smear campaign, it is reporting what reliable sources have said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you ever breathe in? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard ban proposal

I agree with Andythegrump. Last Angry Man does have an agenda which is clear by all his edits related to the Occupy protests. I propose he be topic banned from all noticeboards because he has made half a dozen recent request posts which have been rejected by administrators. He's wasting a lot of administrator time by making such nonsense noticeboard requests. Also, several editors have expressed concerns about sockpuppetry since TLAM seems more knowledgeable in Wikipedia terms for someone who's been here for such a short time. Pass a Method talk 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Please provide diffs showing were I have half a dozen requests on noticeboards about the occupy movement? Or half a dozen request on any subject in fact. And which have been "rejected by administrators" and which have been called nonsense. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Mark, I think "half a dozen" wasn't meant as a literal numerical count but more as a figure of speech, like "one in a million." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Um -- try not making claims about anyone's identiry, Boris. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Draconian solutions do not work, and the claims implicit above in one comment that a person is a sock belong in the ArbCom area, not here. Lastly, hyperbole does not suit any noticeboard when such an act is being sought in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not draconian. TLAM has a habit of getting into conflict with established editors, and then going to noticeboards with his problem. Pass a Method talk 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You need actual diffs as a minimum for the claims you made. And SBHB was "less than helpful" with his implication that TLAM is a sock of a banned user. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that this is an appropriate place to be discussing topic bans, claims of sockpuppetry etc. If the latter is raised at a more appropriate noticeboard, I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on the matter. 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are the attacks continuing? Gerardw (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Not since the last one i posted here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Vegaswiki making personal attacks

Regarding a content dispute on Rubén Rivera, User:Vegaswiki resorted to an ad hominem attack against me. I warned the user not to do that. The user then blanked the warning and repeated the attack. I warned the user again. In response, the user undid my reversion of the ad hominem attack. I now bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets get this straight right off the bat. I will make no comments about the content dispute. Except on your own talk page or under very particular circumstances you may not edit or delete another editor's talk page comments. This is a far more serious infraction IMO than the incivility of which you complain. Also, I note that you appear to have made no attempt to resolve the dispute except by templating the user and as noted before blanking his comments on an article talk page. Blanking template warnings BTW is specifically allowed and is considered evidence that the person concerned has seen and noted the warning, you do not have the right to complain about an editor blanking a template warning on his own talk page. So back to the civility issue. The comments made were certainly rude, but were on the less severe end of the spectrum. Certainly they did not warrant you going straight to a level 3 warning then immediately to a level 4. It seems to me that this could be rightly called pouring fuel onto the fire. Maybe you should just consider leaving this part of Wikipedia alone for a week or two and try to be less confrontational yourself when you disagree with other editors. In such cases you are far better to calmly discuss the issue and make you case without inflamning things by placing templates on editors' talk pages and calling their posts on a talk page vandalism, regardless of whether they are uncivil or not - an entirely different thing altogether. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NPA: "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed". I know these aren't the most serious of attacks, but I don't want to let any personal attack against me stand, so as I see it, I am within my rights to remove any ad hominem attack. I've discussed the issue on the article's talk page. Also, I know that blanking one's own talk page is acceptable (except for active block notices), which is why I didn't try to revert that. I'm simply describing the user's behavior. Whether I was right to start on level 3 or not, the user is continuing the attacking behavior and not collaborating on the issue. As for "leaving this part of Wikipedia alone for a week or two", check the page histories. I am not actively editing the page. As edits concerning BLP policies appear on my watchlist, I address them. You're not addressing the issue of incivility. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to remove the entire comment -- WP:NPA discusses this. In any event, I've redacted the personal attack portion of the comment and place 3rr warnings on both user's talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have no problem with the remaining part of the user's comment, which I could have and should have left in place. I maintain that I am within my rights to remove personal attacks against me, though, no matter how "minor" the attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you're not. Looie496 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Because of this - Nick Thorne talk 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerned, though not really my business

I was cleaning user pages out of my watchlist and stumbled upon some Talk namespace edits that concerned me. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lionelt&diff=prev&oldid=457883397 I don't really remember any prior interactions with either of the editors involved, but it sure seems like at least one of the participants could use some wikiquette coaching! (sdsds - talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sure we could all use coaching. This report, however, is a bit on the vague side; moreover, the language used in the discussion you're pointing at strikes me as far from unprofessional. Unless you wish to point at specific users breaking specific guidelines at specific times, I suggest we take the advice to use wikiquette coaching to heart and close the thread. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

University at Buffalo

For months now I have tried to revise and add useful information and pictures to the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Throughout this time, my facts and pictures have been reputed and removed by User:Mtking. Even though the page has minimal pictures (compared to other large research universities), he has taken the one's I add off multiple times. The pictures that I have uploaded show the University in a good light and reflect its history and its current nature. The pictures are also copyrighted well and have been taken by myself and a colleague of mine. I feel harassed now because it is so hard to edit and revise this wikipedia page. Thank you so much for your time and effort reviewing this case.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Davidhar (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a content dispute, not an etiquette issue. As the other editor has suggested, discuss on the talk page of the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese incivility again

Roselese is an experienced editor with a history of incivility with a number of editors. On this particilar occasion she made this nasty accusation: "Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming."[25] Not only is she unfairly accusing myself and NYYankees, she is accusing Kuru of complicity. – Lionel (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ros's claim is unsubstantiated. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Not that it seems anyone cares... more personals attacks here: [26] I wonder if the absence of any sanction whatsoever has enboldened her? – Lionel (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that if you don't want people to accuse you of tag-teaming, you give them no ammunition to do so. Without expressing an opinion myself, that pattern of edits is suspicious, especially as NYyankees51 had never edited the article previously. Black Kite (t) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The IP (from 3RRN) left a section on my talk devoted to the article, essentially amounting to an accusation of vandalism.[27] I imagine that NYY is one of the 60 or so editors stalking me, and went to investigate. But for the IP posting to my talk NYY doesn't edit the article. Noone was brought in. Noone coordinated anything. – Lionel (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This is not a question for WP:WQA. Potential WP:TAG TEAM issues have already been mentioned by multiple wikipedians in connection with WikiProject Conservatism. That is not helped when invitations are extended to topic-banned editors.[28] None of this looks good. Mathsci (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no complicity implied by Roscelese to Kuru, only knowing or unknowing disregard of the activities of Lionelt and NYyankees51. She leaves Kuru's motive unspecified.
As for "nasty accusation", I don't see it. It's not nasty, and its more of an observation than an accusation. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

User Feedback has for a long time made dickish comments to users who in his opinion are wrong including to me. I've kept quiet about this for a long time but I can't take his dickish attitude anymore. Voices in my Head WWE 02:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive112&oldid=459417852"