Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts)
Jump to: navigation, search
Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards

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:
Shortcut:
  • 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):

Contents



[edit] Active discussions

[edit] Jayjg Personal Attacks

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."

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)

[edit] Rude/Uncooperative Editor

Editor in question has so far refused to participate (despite being invited to) in the discussion to state his reasons for the edit reversions. A consensus was reached the the discussion regarding the future of the articles mentioned due to WP:NOT. Editor left this message on my talkpage - Don't use WP:NOTGUIDE be the reason, if you can do it, why don't you use this reason to edit for all Singapore MRT stations, if you can't, you're the silly rubbish! and on his edit summaries in the above mentioned articles - Rubbish Planenut, don't think you are correct, don't do any rubbish delete!- Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 16:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor in question has not popped by here despite being invited to. Suggestions? - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 11:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lecen bad faith personal attacks

I made a comment on Paraguayan War as it is usually known as the War of the Triple Alliance in English, Paraguayan War tends to be a minority term used predominantly in Brazil - though it does feature in English language histories of Brazil. User:Lecen has been needlessly hostile to innocent comments eg [1], today after a politely worded notice that per WP:TPG he should not refactor other's comments [2] he reverts with the comment "Removed bullshit" and posted this rant on my talk page [3] with threats, bad faith attacks and apparently "I should learn my place". I haven't participated in any of the bad faith attacks in the move discussion, I have so far per WP:AGF written his comments off to a misunderstanding but this is too much. Can someone independent please remind him that per WP:TPG he should not refactor talk page discussions and that WP:CIVIL is not optional. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) [4] His response to the WQA note required per guideliens "removed more bullshit". Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

These are recurring issues with Lecen, across many articles and pages, aimed at anyone who disagrees with him on any number of issues, articles, or content areas. Unless the folks who frequent WP:WQA are able to do something about this (which I doubt they can or will, because they haven't dealt with Lecen in past reports here), I point out that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lecen is a red link. By the way, as a result of my post here (a page I follow), Lecen has suggested that I "might try to kill him". [5] I don't know how such hystrionic language relates to no legal threats or whatever policies we have that cover such things (do we have a "no threat of death threat" policy?), but oh my ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at ANI about Lecen's bizarre posts about Sandy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going to begin my comment here in support of Wee Curry Monster for the way Lecen has been treating him these past few days. While Lecen has also made a series of aggressive comments and accusations towards me, I will address these (and other issues) below this message. WCM has kept his cool, been objective, and yet has received as much (if not even more) personal attacks from Lecen than even myself. Why? All due to a simple discussion over an article's title. If Lecen gets so combative over a mere title, one can only imagine how he may get in more serious matters. Sandy provides a bigger record on this editor than even I knew about.
Regarding my relationship with WCM. As can be seen in Talk:Falkland Islands, I am not WCM's "friend" (which is what Lecen aggressively indicates in WCM's talk page: [6]). I do have to admit that this whole discussion has changed my view on WCM, towards the positive, but that still does not make us "friends" by any definition of the word (If a barrel fell on my head, I am sure WCM would not really care at all). Actually, I get the feeling that WCM really does not like me very much (particularly my writing style), and at this time is probably wondering why we're on the "same side" of a discussion (technically, I am arguing from one position while he argues from another, though ultimately both converge in a single conclusion which is that in favor of moving the "Paraguayan War" to "War of the Triple Alliance"). Having stated that, here are some other points regarding Lecen's behavior ([7]):
  • Accusations of canvassing and sockpupetry: One user made use of sock puppets in the RM discussion, and for some reason he now swings it at everyone involved on the matter. I made a post at Jimbo Wales' page, and I even took the time to present my defense from his accusation, and yet he continues to accuse me (and everyone else) of canvassing.
  • Xenophobia: I am from Peru, and he is from Brazil. For some reason he thinks that I have something against him because he is Brazilian and I am Peruvian. He also seems to think that WCM and all the other non-Brazilian editors have something against him due to his nationality. Note that I am not accusing him of xenophobia (despite his actions do show some signs of that), but rather he is accusing me of it.
  • Bullying and WP:DIVA: Lecen constantly reminds everyone of his "FA and GA articles", tries to impose his apparent "veteran" status on Brazil-related articles, and thinks he can use such tactics to force other users to agree with him. To me that is clear bullying. He also uses diva behavior, threatening to leave the project (to his "friends") if things don't go his way.
More exist, but it's beyond the point. I personally have nothing against Lecen and find his contributions to be fantastic. Perhaps because of his profession (lawyer) he thinks that it's good to always be on a "battleground" when it comes to topics close to them. I don't know. What I do know is that his "friends" here in Wikipedia, instead of guiding him on the right direction (ie, calm him down), either fuel his position or let him continue this aggressive behavior. I wouldn't call them friends, hence the quotation marks, and I do believe that they are as much a part to this behavioral problem as Lecen. Sadly, I don't think WQA is meant for a wide-range "counseling" situation. I hope this problem can be resolved in a peaceful manner. Note: I was writing this when the ANI situation came up; for the sake of expressing my opinion, which may or may not be relevant to the matter at this time, I am publishing it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good summary. Lecen is incapable of taking on board reasonable criticism of his articles and has alienated many reviewers as a result. His responses to those who have had the temerity to oppose one of his FACs ought to have dealt with well before now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed Lecen's work, and got into a battleground-esque fight over source quality. I've reviewed Lecen's work and had a comfortable and friendly discussion over content and historiography. Lecen is a valuable editor, working in an area of the encyclopaedia that needs more valuable editors. Many editors need to reduce their levels of combativeness, I wish we could do this better. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sadowski personal attack

After a disputed edit on Lincoln Capri, he called me an idiot & suggested I read the source. I had not only read the source, I relied on it for the disputed information. He followed with two further insults suggesting I was incompetent to edit on the subject, since the source was wrong & he knew better. He also left an edit summary calling me immature. Notice, I didn't start with the insults, the original edits were both gf & sourced, & the deletions were unsourced & contrary to the sourced material. I don't need this crap from him. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

He's also messing around with your talk page, restoring comments you deleted, an action which is against WP:TALK guidelines. I see WP:DICKish behavior by Sadowski. Wikipedia is not the place for abusive editors who think they know more than the sources. Binksternet (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Subject of this thread has been notified. Binksternet (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I do in fact believe that Trekphiler is totally unqualified to be editing the Lincoln pages. Trekphiler does not display any common sense knowledge of the features or styling that was current during the periods in question. On the other hand I do not have a copy of Flory. But if Flory contradicts these facts then Flory is clearly wrong. One merely needs to consult other sources such as the Standard Catalogs of American Cars or sales brochures or data books or even more simply the actual cars built (such as the one in my garage). Sadowski (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I also want to remind people that the abusive conduct is not mine. I have not called Trekphiler an "asshole" and I have not called him a "moron". These are purely his word choices.Sadowski (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadowski, you are in no position to say who is qualified to edit an article - you do NOT own the article, regardless of how much expertise you think you might have. You have been warned about such behaviour before and, again, it is totally unacceptable. Both of you are equally at fault, probably need your heads banged together for a while, and probably need administrator intervention. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just an update. I have obtained copies of Flory's books. Flory is in complete agreement with the sales brochures and with Kowalke. This does not at all surprise me. I was quite sure that Trekphiler had not actually read Flory (either that or he has serious trouble with reading comprehension). For example, Flory clearly states that AC was introduced as an option in 1955 on page 664 of the relevant volume ("available" does not mean standard). The bottom of page 664 also lists it in a table cearly labeled "Major Options". The problem is thus not with the sources. The problem is with people citing sources they either have not read or cannot comprehend. It is simply wrong to state that a source says something it does not. Unfortunately in my opinion this is a very common occurence at Wikipedia.Sadowski (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how content is an issue on this board. This is about how editors treat each other. You called Trekphiler an idiot. He called you an asshole (I don't much care who started it). Sounds like you both need to cool it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and Trekphiler also called me a "moron". But evidently despite being a moron I am actually able to comprehend the sources I cite. If the issue is treatment then the question is why did Trekphiler feel it was necessary to undo the positive changes done by the anonymous editor when that editor mostly correctly cited those changes and Trekphiler's reversals were clearly incorrectly cited? Moreover he has a history of routinely undoing positive additions that are easily cited (or more recently, which were correctly cited) and ironically agree with the single source he has demonstrably incorrectly cited. Is that considered Civil Behavior?
By the way I am cool. I'm so cool that unlike some people I'm eager to talk this through without erasing all evidence of the discussion. Sadowski (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive editor

Stuck: Taken to WP:ANI. Danger High voltage! 11:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am being publically accused by this editor on the talk page of "meatpuppetry", and I have done nothing of the kind. This editor is now threatening me as follows: "Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban."

After spending a considerable amount of time researching and finding proper citations, and working with other (more reasonable) editors trying to improve the article, it seems we had reached a consensus - only to be completely reverted by this editor. Based upon past discussions with him, it appears he has a COI, and has consistently attempted to remove or disrupt any negative information on the agency.

As an editor with a couple hundred edits to my credit, Wiki doesn't pay us enough to have to endure this kind of abuse.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a contentious article, and Computer Guy 2 was blocked for sockpuppetry on January 14, 2012, for 3 days. Computer Guy 2 also reported AceD at WP:SPI, and the closing admin note stated, in part: "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." ([8]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was blocked - for stupidity in trying to change my identity. In all fairness, you should have pointed out that AceD was warned for Edit Warring against this editor and warned for using multiple accounts in August, 2011. Nevertheless, Bbb23, I thought we worked together pretty well to hammer out a reasonable section - which has now been deleted. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the link to the SPI report has the "warning" you refer to, but it's a bit more innocuous than that. HelloAnnyong said only that he warned AceD about being sure to log in and that he thought that AceD's edit was accidental while logged out. As for you and me, quite honestly, I found you difficult to work "with", but certainly not enough to complain about your conduct. The section in the article you're referring to is messy, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to what's going on since I did a bit of work on the article, mainly because I felt that to do so I'd have to go through it line by line, source by source, and I haven't had the time. However, at a glance, it looked like it wasn't the entire section that was at issue, but that numbered list of agents. To the extent that AceD is trying to eliminate the list and incorporate it into the text, I would - and normally Wikipedia also would - favor that kind of presentation. In any event, this report you've brought is more about the comments made by AceD than by the content war that triggered them, and I must say that his comments are a bit over the top - it's not clear to me that either of you is handling the article neutrally, or each other in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Both of you have a singular interest in the article and in related articles, which often doesn't bode well for neutral editing or calm tempers.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the referenced warning, I simply repeated the heading posted by HelloAnnyong on AceD's Talk Page, "Warning on multiple accounts". Just for the record, there is no "content war" on my part. I simply posted current, cited and verified information, along with other editors, directly pertaining to the heading and removed unverified material. Months ago, when it was clear that no progress was being made in discussion with AceD, I just dropped it and walked away. Since then, I've given considerable thought to this whole process, and personally resolved to be a better editor by not responding to flame-baiting, goading, personal attacks and other forms of incivility. While I do have a narrow spectrum of interest, it certainly isn't singular, and I've posted to a number of articles. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Some comments as an uninvolved editor: It's clear that there is a long standing conflict between you both (Computer Guy 2 and AceD). The comments by AceD are indeed over the top. And I can't be the only admin who is profoundly irritated by editors proclaiming "You will be blocked when I report you" and the like. Being treated like a compliant standby doesn't dispose me to look favorably upon the wielder's viewpont. It's also clear that you both have strong opinions on the subject and that this may be affecting your respective abilities to work together on this article. I have noticed a clear pattern in both of your talk page edits of 1) discussing the topic beyond what is necessary to improve the article and 2) disrespectful commentary on each other. I urge you both to evaluate your approach to editing and to talk page discussions and to think about what your goals are here. You will not convince each other of your respective points of view. The article will not look the way you would prefer and will probably appear biased to you. But, if you keep your conversations concise, the focus always on the article text itself and not the ATF generally, and have as a main goal finding a wording and form that is mutually acceptable and conforms to verifiability and neutral point of view, you can get through it. Computer Guy 2, it seems like you've already done this to some degree and kudos for that, sincerely. Danger High voltage! 07:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite tired of arguing with you about this, that much is true. As far as the content resolution side of it, you and you alone keep promoting this anti-ATF agenda dispite numerous editors on the talk page fundamentally disagreeing with the section you alone are responsible for, it is that simple.

Beyond that, it is beyond debate that you have engaged in meatpuppetry. You have now twice referred to (here, and on the talk page) the "numerous editors" that you "built a consensus with" as support for your point of view, without acknowledging that these "numerous editors" are friends of yours from an anti-ATF message board where you posted this article and asked for support. Not the first time you have done so, either. Subsequently, multiple people registered for the first time for an account and promoted your same point of view to reach your idea of a "consensus". I haven't reported you yet, because I have strong suspicion that such an act will get you permanently banned so close on the heels of your latest sockpuppetry ban, but will certainly do so today if you persist in this action and vitrol. Beyond that, I think the true consensus regarding the content speaks for itself, and I am done with it.AceD (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


With the exception of 9 early postings, AceD has occupied nearly all his time on Wikipedia reverting the undersigned's edits and engaging in personal attacks on the undersigned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AceD) To be fair, there was a short period of rational, almost cordial discussion. The AceD account was created on 5 Feb 2006, posted one edit, and was silent for over 5 years. AceD began using the account again on 9 August 2011, made 8 minor posts, then exclusively began reverting the undersigned's edits, edit warring and making personal attacks. He made no posts to any other subject area. When confronted with the evidence, AceD responded that he had "forgotten" about the account and had been previously posting under various IP addresses. Wikipedia specifically forbids this practice; "Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users."

Before changing to the AceD name, he posted almost identical edits as 71.226.23.207 (13 July 2011 - 23 August 2011) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.226.23.207), beginning his postings by reverting the undersigned's edits. Just prior to 71.226.23.207, another ID (71.203.85.14) was used to post nearly identical edits and engaged in vandalism (17 March 2011 - 30 March 2011). When other editors were critical of 71.203.85.14 failing to sign his posts, he responded, "I don't sign things because I do not yet know how." How many other IP addresses were used by AceD is anybody's guess. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with some of the less involved editors that both of you are taking it too far. If you have suspicions of sockpuppetry or other policy violations, report it at the appropriate place and it will be addressed. Instead, both of you seem to be throwing the accusations out there to try to win the argument over the content of the article, which basically just annoys other people and accomplishes nothing. If your suspicions are justified, this conflict could be over tomorrow thanks to banning, or otherwise those accusations can at least be put aside and everyone can focus on improving the article. Since you specifically mentioned article content above, I'll just say that I'm generally closer to AceD's opinions in terms of article content. You obviously have strong feelings about the ATF and its actions, which is fine and maybe even admirable, but doesn't always lead to a better encyclopedia article. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way. AceD's sockpuppetry was previously addressed in a complaint, however HelloAnnyong was unable to make the connection between the various IP addresses and AceD. My background in other articles is irrelevant to this issue. I repeat the earlier quote, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." The topic of this request for assistance is personal attacks on the undersigned. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to revisit a 6 month old complaint you made where the investigation found there was no wrongdoing on my part and that you were warned for superficially trying to carry out an edit war. Especially since you are the only sockpuppet in this conversation, and are even now continuing to engage in similar behavior.
For the record, I have exclusively used only one username- not three like yourself- on wikipedia. Before that username I exclusively used a single IP address at a given time. I have never presented myself as different entities in the same conversation, unlike what you have done on multiple occassions. And never will. But I can't fail to see the irony of being consistently accused of sockpuppetry by someone who has been banned from editing this article for months on end and is within two weeks of coming off a ban for multiple sockpuppets.
Further, to Hazydan's point- this is no attempt by me to "win" an argument or debate on this issue. Indeed, I do not see a present issue as over the past year not a single individual (outside of the meatpuppets that registered yesterday) have supported Computer Guy's well documented attempts to enumerate each and every issue with ATF. Numerous people, in various different venues, have explained that the section is unbalanced, redundant, uncalled for and/or crass NPOV.
Now back to you, Computer Guy/Ike/Solo I Fatty- your history DOES matter. Even a cursory glance at your history shows that EVERYBODY seemingly has a problem with you. Even the people who do "work" with you subsequently explain the difficulty in dealing with you. This is very telling. I can honestly say that you are the ONLY person I have EVER had an issue with on wikipedia. You mention that most of my posts have been edits on your material, and in some way try to cast that in a negative light. However, by your own admission now, you recognize that the very same material you blasephemy me for editing did not belong in the first place and you, as the original editor, were wrong for posting? How in ANY way is that an indictment on my history?AceD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, "The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way." Now, we have yet another personal attack. I have no intention of responding to flame-baiting. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Query: how is a mutual focus on each other's editing history and behavior helping improve Wikipedia? Are you closer to finding a resolution to any disputes over content than you were yesterday? Danger High voltage! 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Answer. My purpose in bringing this situation to Wikiquette assistance is to clearly demonstrate the personal attacks upon the undersigned. AceD's continued speculation on my off-site identity is a clear and flagrant violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's threat to continue disrupting my work on Wikipedia is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's continued personal attacks upon the undersigned on this page consist of prima facie evidence of Wikipedia:Harassment. Further, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....whether any such information is accurate or not." Other editors have engaged in Wikihounding and continuing the personal attacks. None of these violations contribute to constructive editing nor finding any resolution. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Again, yet another bait and switch on your part....and another outright lie. Please read these policies you so flippantly throw out. "Personal information" is defined by wikipedia policy as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other personal contact information". Kindly link where any of these items have been posted by this user or any other. You won't though, because you can't. I didn't respond to you last comment, because there was nothing to respond to. Just leave it alone. You have made your "point", and repeatedly changing the issues that you have with me literally from post to post is only going to provide the opposite effect that you intend.AceD (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiki-policy isn't a legal code. Repeatedly referring and linking to to a user's undisclosed off-wiki identity may be seen as harassment, regardless of whether that specific type of information is listed in policy. I see that you have not responded or apparently listened to either of my comments. What exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Danger High voltage! 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
First, I have "listened" to your advice. I do not see the need to verbalize my acknowledgment, though maybe that was an error. However, the essence of your advice has been received and acted on- I am not posting anymore in the article, not engaging with Computer Guy, etc. I didn't even respond to his penultimate comment earlier today, but I did feel his most recent remark and false accusations merited a defense, without overly vindictive personal remarks or verbal comments that expanded the scope of the discussion beyond a defense. I was done with the "content" some time ago, as I also mentioned earlier. When viewed through the prism that I am not the reason that we are here and did not initiate this action, I can only say that I can truly answer your question "what do you hope to accomplish here" with...Nothing.
Beyond that, there is no "repeated" action here- I posted the complaint and have been done with it. Computer Guy 2 is the only one bringing it up now. And the "off-wiki" identity isn't "undisclosed", in fact Computer Guy 2 is who disclosed that previously unknown website to this editor and into one of our previous discussions, while acknowledging his postings here there.
Now, I will certainly be done with this issue....if allowed to be. And truly, thanks for the advice.AceD (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Both of you should really pay attention to Danger and Hazydan and just stop. Rehashing the bad blood, fighting about the content of the article - none of that will accomplish anything. Computer Guy 2, I suggest you end this topic. AceD, I suggest you be a little less strident in your language; regardless of whether you think it's supportable, it's not constructive. Both of you should pay more attention to the good of the encyclopedia rather than your own viewpoints. And if you can't edit the article neutrally, then don't edit it at all. Edit other articles you don't feel strongly about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Nobody Ent 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems I posted this on the wrong assistance page. I was looking for administrator intervention rather than any rehashing of bad blood. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

CG2 has copied all of the posts here to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, you beat me to it. Thanks for the help. I opened this discussion, and am closing it by moving the entire discussion to WP:ANI. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I have been accused of using sockpuppetry and adding OR to a page

I have been accused of using sockpuppetry and adding OR to a page and threatened with being reported for adding cited information to an article by Mabuska. He accuses me of being some other IP user because I havent been on here for a while and got involved with wikipedia again and started edditing again around the same time he was having a dispute with some IP. He threatens me with an investigation, then threatens to report me when all I'm trying to do is remove OR and improve a page. Can someone please help?

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Odoital25 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly the evidence that you were using sockpuppets can be found at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Odoital25. Just because you have now started to sign your comments doesn't suddenly make you innocent.
Secondly i have only threatened to report you for constant violation of WP:BRD and your failure to properly discuss the issue. You can improve a page if you wish however if you make an edit that is reverted you have to discuss it - not continue on as if you WP:OWN the article ignroing others opinions. Regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong - you must abide by Wikipedias rules. Mabuska (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Severe personal attacks

In the edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARind_et_al._controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=474272867&oldid=474226276 the user resorted to insinuating/accusing another user of pedo-POV pushing, which is highly untrue statement. Comment was attempted to first be striked out, then removed but user refuses to have comment striked out or removed.

I'm hoping for a temporary block and personal attacks removed if possible. Juice Leskinen 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Rind et al. controversy#No personal attacks too. All I did was comment on the nature of this editor's edits, and I have the right to say that these edits are typical of a certain type of editing. Another editor also called out Juice's biased editing. Juice's editing is typical of the type of problematic editors that have plagued this article since its existence. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure the reviewer can make up his own mind. So let him do so in peace. I will abide any decision without discussion. Juice Leskinen 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with giving my side of the story. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching Talk:Rind et al. controversy but am avoiding it due to the extremely unhelpful nature of messages from a write-only editor (not named here). Likewise I have not followed what is going on in the article (in a month or two, when the excitement has died down, established editors will evaluate all the changes and will remove anything inappropriate). While the talk page comment by 194.170.28.240 (diff above) is phrased to avoid saying "X is a bad person", the comment is not acceptable because "X is doing POV-pushing that is extremely typical of bad people" is just a wikilawyer's version of an obvious attack. Everyone at the article and its talk page are showing far too much experience for new editors and should know the ground rules: if there is any advocacy (as I say, I have not looked at the edits), the editors concerned, and their edits, will be removed from Wikipedia; attacks without evidence are not acceptable, and must not be made. The IP can email the Arbitration Committee (see that link for how), if they have evidence (do not post without good evidence as that will cause any future correspondence to be discounted). The IP should post a new section at the talk page (without naming any editor), and simply identify text in the article that they think is inappropriate, and why. Being combative will not help—just identify any problem content. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a block evader who has made similar personal attacks in the past. He has been blocked at least 6 times, including range blocks (check User:DeltaQuad's talk page for evidence). I will now attempt to semi-protect all his most frequented articles. Pass a Method talk 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Now look who's stalking who. No doubt you saw my most recent post to User talk:Herostratus. Well, as I said there, I was right and DeltaQuad was wrong, as evidenced by others seeing and reverting the same edits I reverted. The only reason I keep getting blocked is for being a proxy-IP and because I stalk you. So what? Others have agreed that your edits are generally bad. For example, how's the deletion debates regarding a few of your articles going? LOL.
By the way, I have to laugh at your threat to get my most frequented articles semi-protected. I don't have any frequented articles, other than the ones you visit, because I follow you. Duh. And you can't get any article I edit semi-protected. That's not a valid reason for semi-protection. My edits have to be problematic, and they haven't been. Besides that, as recently shown, I can get other editors to clean up dirty work. So you might as well face it that you're stuck with me.
P.S. If what I said about Juice's edits was actually considered a severe personal attack, administrators would have acted by now. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh well, seems your behavior is acceptable here. Keep on trolling man, good effort so far! Juice Leskinen 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Boo-fucking-hoo. You managed to stalk someone on an online web-project. I guess some Americans have an awful lot of time to waste dont they? Pass a Method talk 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Borgy

Resolved: editor blocked Nobody Ent 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I encountered Borgy back in September at Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) and again this week at Crash Love. On both occassions I was very put off by his edit summaries and left him warnings about personal attacks: [9] [10]. Considering the length of time he's been on Wikipedia I found his incivility unacceptable, so I took a look at his history to see if there were more examples. It appears he's not very active, having made only about 1,400 edits in his 6.25 years here — He'll pop in for a bunch of edits and then be absent for months, which has probably allowed his uncivil comments to go unnoticed.

Initially I wasn't going to bother coming here because many of the offending comments are old, since he edits infrequently, but relative to the span of his contributions and the length of time he's been here the edit summaries are rather intolerable. Here are some highlights. These go back 8 or 9 months, but keep in mind they're all from his 60 most recent edits & this is someone who's been active on & off for over 6 years:

I don't think I'm off-base in saying this kind of behavior is unacceptable, particularly from an editor of over 6 years (on and off) experience. Because he tends to disappear for a few months once he seems to have gotten his way, I doubt the warnings I left him will elicit any sort of response or change in behavior. What action, if any, should the community take in a situation like this? IllaZilla (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IllaZilla, you should just report him to an admin and get him blocked. His personal attacks are bad enough that he deserves it. Waste of time bringing it here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
My initial thought was to go to ANI, but they tend to just direct you to a more specific board if there is one (the "Are you in the right place?" list at the top of ANI), & I thought this would be the most pertinent board since it's about user communication. I also thought the situation a bit fuzzy since Borgy is such an intermittent editor, so the problematic comments aren't all recent (though they do show a pattern IMO) & ANI sometimes dismisses problems that aren't obviuosly recent or where a recent pattern isn't readily apparent. I can move this over to ANI if that would seem a better avenue. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, this board is a place to get editors with disputes over Wikiquette issues to discuss things; looking at Borgy's edit history, though, it really doesn't look like he wants to discuss anything. So yeah, a waste of time. If you don't want to bother people at ANI there's always AN instead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The WQA notification was only recently presented -- let's WP:AGF and give the editor an opportunity to reply. Nobody Ent 02:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:AGF is fine in principle, and I agree, we should wait a bit. But frankly, with Borgy's edit history, I think the outcome is predictable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
In general, WP:CIVIL isn't enforced for lots of reasons. But in this case, I believe it should be reported an WP:ANI. No harm in waiting for a response here from the editor first though, see what the editor has to say. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I concur with the responses you've been given above, since as far as I can tell, the most recent absurdity was last September. Has she/he repeated same? If not, perhaps you're better off to have someone from here issue a warning, and then escalate to ANI if there is a another instance of <anything>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie ... wrong (it helps to put dates on diffs): I see this was on January 29. I agree; take it to ANI, and hope that some mature competent admins will weigh in. It happens occasionally :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually the most recent absurdity was just 3 days ago. Check the last diff above. That's the reason I brought this here instead of straight to ANI: Borgy doesn't edit very often, disappearing for months at a time. But when he is here, he tends to be uncivil and make personal attacks. I don't think he should escape scrutiny just because he edits infrequently. The attacks are chronologically far apart, but relative to the frequency his edits they're statistically close together (8 attacks within his last 60 edits). This demonstrates a pattern: When he is here, he's uncivil, and he's apparently escaped censure because he strikes & then vanishes. If someone is uncivil every time they're here, that merits some scrutiny, even if they're not here all all that often. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't bother taking it to ANI. Blocked. Danger High voltage! 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Being compared to Hitler

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: No wikiquette violation Nobody Ent 22:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant compared me to Adolf Hitler in this. I am horrifically offended by this! I abhor Hitler, the Nazis, and all they stand for. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(sigh), I am beginning to see why you did a cleanstart... Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
HTDLS, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Request help

The folks with an agenda are editing Kinetic Sculpture Race again. Here's the latest diff: [11]. Please notice the personal attack in the edit summary. Additionally, they're making very nasty comments on Facebook, where they claim that me, User:Nytasi and User:Chzz are the same person, which we obviously are not.

What she added is what User:Ebenezercore added several times before, to add his name to the Wiki page to attempt to "own" the event his father started. Here is a news reference about what they are attempting to do: [12]. Regardless of how unpleasant these people are to me personally, I still don't see that her boyfriend's name has any relevance, nor is he notable, and I'm really sorry they feel a need to take this personal. However, I don't feel I'm the one to make any changes to the page due to their comments. I would appreciate any assistance in this regard. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Viriditas Purpose redirects

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: not wikiquette issue, continue discussion on User_talk:Viriditas#Redirect and/or open WP:RFC Nobody Ent 03:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See: User_talk:Viriditas#Redirect

Viriditas has redirected Purpose multiple times.[13] [14] I've asked the user multiple times to undo their redirect. This would be helpful to proceed with the talk page discussions. The user is taking a break now and the over 12 sources contributing to an article with about 400 hits per day, have been disrupted with a single redirect. I would appreciate it if someone else would look at Viriditas' behavior and contact Viriditas to correct the redirect disruption. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the disruption is coming from ZuluPapa5, who has refused to recognize the discussion at Talk:Purpose#Redirect_roll_back or the third opinion offered in that discussion by an outside party, or the previous consensus at Talk:Purpose#Proposal_of_redirect_to_intention_instead_of_teleology. Because ZuluPapa5 will not use the article talk page to discuss this, I have requested that he use either the RS or NPOV noticeboard to make his case. I've also asked him to stop using my user talk page to ask me the same question over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5 is advised to read WP:BOOMERANG, as their behaviour appears to be blatant forum shopping. They posted a request at third opinion which I answered at the talk page. They must not have been satisfied with my comment, but this is not disruption on the part of Viriditas. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Seeing just content dispute, not any wikiquette issue. Issue was already discussed on article talk. Open WP:RFC if more eyes on topic are desired. Nobody Ent 03:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Or use DRN. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=474696844"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export