Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Romaioi

User:Romaioi was identified as a potential sock puppet of Generalmesse, as required User:noclador informed of this and explained the checkuser process on his talk page. The checkuser proved to be negative, although all the other sock puppet suspects proved to be correct. Unfortunately User:Romaioi has taken this extremely personally and in his defence, launched a series of personal attacks against User:noclador. As a result after explaining the checkuser process User:noclador has chosen to disengage with this editor, see [1]. I have attempted to smooth things over but User:Romaioi has seen fit to publish further personal attacks on his talk page. Discussion over the sock puppet accusation have been moved to an archive page User talk:Romaioi/Archive 1. I have urged him to withdraw the personal attacks but he is unrepentant. I can only see this escalating, would someone be able to intervene please. Justin talk 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through it first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So... incorrectly accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, withdrawing from the ongoing discussion of the accusation, then refusing to apologize for making the accusation, all that isn't uncivil, but having a certain amount of justifiable resentment over a false accusation and besmirching of one's character, that's uncivil? Interesting ethical stance.

User:noclador should go hat in hand to User:Romaioi and offer profound and sincere apologies. If things continue afterwards, then there might be a case for incivility, but until then... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for the user to return to editing prior to going any further with this - and I don't think that tone is helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that I came here with the aim of calming things before it escalated, that was not helpful. Justin talk 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

UNDINDENT Apologies for not having replied sooner - I do not log on every day. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has echoed my sentiments. This issue does not have much to do with Justin. I appreciate what he was trying to do. However, to claim a series of personal attacks by me towards User:noclador is incorrect. All I am guilty of is calling User:noclador a liar. Beyond that, the language in my initial defense was emotive in tone (and I had good reason beyond being accused in the manner in which I was). On the other hand User:noclador delivered several personal attacks on me, and also abused my sincerity. The referring to me as a fanatic, simply for my exercising my right, in accordance with the rules, to present a thorough defense and the continued deletion of my edits represents a large degree of prejudice on my accuser’s part (I know, this statement will be seen by some as a personal attack – but that’s just a deduced conclusion with no personal motive). Now, as I have just learn from Justin's link above:[2], he has acussed me of being a bully in a one sided passage that I see as another manipulation of my words. The reason? I do not know. I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character. He did state that he firmly believed me to be Generalmesse, (as per his statement on Jume 30: you have massively reinforced the suspicion that you are in fact a sock of User:Generalmesse). Regardless, the personal attacks and insults towards me were stronger than anything I dished out in my defense.

So in regard to Justin's position, I appreciate what he has tried to do. I respect him as a result. The last thing I am trying to do is attack him and I am sorry that he feels that way. However, I do feel, respectfully, that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction.

The summary on my user page is not intended to escalate the situation. It’s intention to to be an example of the ethical issue which Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has illustrated with the definitive purpose leaving it there. (I did leave fine print saying that I would delete any further discussion.) Beyond that I have not continued this. I was trying to be sincere and thought it was fair to summarise given all the circumstances. I have even removed names and highlighted my own mistakes (as any reasonable person should in the case of the latter). I do not think I have been unreasonable. But I certainly think that my accuser was. Given the circumstances I believe I should be allowed some grace on the matter.

Moreover, the summary at User talk:Romaioi and my reams of dialogue following, I believe, show evidence that I understand and appreciate the purpose of the investigation. I am all for that sort of thing. Though, had my accuser been more thorough in his investigation, as per my summary etc, I cannot see how it could have been logically concluded that I was a sock puppet in the first place.

I do not think its unreasonable to leave the summary in place. If I remove it, all the negative remarks concerning me, that are elsewhere, will still remain without answer. How is that fair?

Romaioi (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Unrepentent? I have been apologising to all others involved repeatedly.Romaioi (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[3] Diff here shows your response to my request to remove the personal attack on your talk page. Noting the reference to abuse of authority I would highlight again that neither of us are administrators, we're just normal editors. There was no abuse of authority, I can understand you might have been upset at being caught up in this but furthering the dispute with a personal attack is not the way to go. Justin talk 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There were a few things you said both here, and on your talk page. Can you provide diffs of those "negative comments" that you think aren't going to be removed or modified? We can certainly look into it here, if it's appropriate. If it is, then I think it is best you remove your summary. If it isn't, then we probably can archive the relevant comments, and then we'd need to ask you to archive your summary. I therefore think that we can resolve this dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlosguitar

There is a long standing debate between User:Carlosguitar, myself, and a couple of other editors at the Parkour article. It is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour.

Throughout this discussion I have felt constantly baited and bullied by Carlosguitar in a passive aggressive way. You can make up your mind for yourself from the links I provide below, but I feel that I have been extraordinarily patient. A neutral third party also expressed similar opinions.(here) At every stage I have attempted to compromise, for instance, letting go a point in the interests of peace when suggested by the neutral third party. Carlosguitar then responded hostilely to the neutral editor.[4] (at the bottom)

I feel that Carlosguitar consistently used the letter of the law rather than it’s speared to try to force his views. For instance repeatedly trying to use WP:WEIGHT to justify removing the criticism section from the article (you will note that this was explicitly rejected by the neutral opinion).

He has made several accusation of being personally attacked. here for instance (4th and 5th paragraph down). Finally just recently he accused me of personally attacking him, when I got fed up with what I see as a particularly bizarre piece of logic[5], and expressed my opinion that he was WP:LAWYER. (Which I can back up with ample evidence if need be). He has since used this alleged attack as a weapon, while adopting an extremely insulting condescending tone with me.[6][7]

There are many other problem posts.

The full discussion can be found:

• here
• here
• and here

I’m not allways perfect on talk pages, but am I’m completely unjustified in feeling attack and disrespected by these messages? Thanks for your impartial opinion. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, once something has gone to Mediation, it is already beyond what can be done here at Wikiquette Alerts. Heh, in fact when there are problems that can't be solved here, it's not uncommon for someone to say, "Try taking it to mediation."  :)

Since Vassyana has been mediating, I will ask him/her if there's any suggestion for what we can do here, but otherwise I am inclined to just refer it back there. Sorry. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet has summed up what happens (or is likely to happen) generally. However, there are a couple of things said by the both of them that have me concerned, at all points of this dispute so far (including at mediation). I honestly think S.dedalus & Carlosguitar, both, need to avoid the article (and each other). Both of you have said some things that are problematic, and are at the point where no amount of discussion or edits concerning this matter (between the both of you) will be helpful at the moment. After a period of time, a week maybe, or once a formal mediation request is accepted, you could resume. Formal mediation is definitely a good idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a generally supported opinion, I will voluntarily leave the article and discussion for whatever amount of time seems appropriate. In fact I have taken several breaks from the discussion due to frustration before. So that I can improve in the future, which of my comments do you feel are problematic Ncmvocalist? --S.dedalus (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I should've been clearer; problematic in resolving the dispute. Comments like 'i do not appreciate your depracating tone' by you or 'i don't appreciate your accusations of owning, disrupting and trolling' by carlosguitar should probably be left to user talk pages. Replying to each of those comments while discussing content on an article talk page is not going to keep discussion focussed on resolving the content dispute. While I do understand that things get heated during a dispute, sometimes, it's unavoidable that you'll need cool-down breaks so that the dispute isn't prolonged unnecessarily or ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just realized Carlosguitar was never notified of this thread. I have now done so.

Vassyana replied to me and suggested we continue the discussion here, to see if we can't work something out. The mediation discussion is frankly too long for me to have time to read the entire thing, and it is hard to comment on specifics without the full context. However, I will say this: While I don't see any horribly egregious civility problems, both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other. And just in general, you both seem really pissed ;) Which is only natural, I suppose (and in fact Vassyana commented that in some ways, this sort of bickering is "par for the course" in a topic on which both editors feel so strongly) but it doesn't really help anyone come to a better conclusion.

I would basically echo what Ncmvocalist said: Both sides would benefit from taking a deep breath/taking a step back/having a nice cup of tea. Vassyana is a good mediator, and will not be fooled by trickery or gaming the system -- so if you think the other side is engaging in shennanigans like that, so what? It won't work. The most effective way to make your case is to keep calm, state your position clearly, answer any questions the mediator might have, and try to keep a professional demeanor. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlosguitar was notified here.[8] --S.dedalus (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I was checking the Talk page. Well, it can't hurt to ping him in both places I 'spose :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you for your incite. I would say that “both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other” is a pretty accurate way to put it. :) I’m also reassured that Vassyana sees this level of disagreement frequently. It’s unfortunate that more editors are not involved in the discussion, because I think with more input, consensus could have been reached long ago. I’m be going on a short vacation this weekend, which will give me a breather from this discussion I suppose, and perhaps I’ll return with a new approach. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Posturewriter

There have been long-running problems over this SPA, and now this - using a Talk page as a venue for an extended personal attack and breach of WP:AGF.

• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread and advised them that the section in question may run afoul of WP:UP#NOT, entry #9. I'd like to see what his/her response is before proceeding. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

However clearly ill-informed he may be in terms of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms, I don't think the rant on his page is quite a personal attack. But I do think this is more RFC material, possibly with multiple conduct issues (but even then, you'd need to have diffs of conduct problems like edit-warring - that talk page comment on its own would probably be insufficient). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to doubt whether there will be a response so I'm tempted to tag this as stuck...but it's still very early - will give it a bit more time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He replied to me today and said he wants another day to think over what I said. So probably Wednesday night we can make a decision on how to close this. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet; I was apparently successful in the COI Number 1 discussion, and later, Gordonofcartoon started COI number 2 with a week or two of more than 5000 words of incessant criticism from him and WhatamIdoing here [9] They just kept going relentlessly here [10] and from 10:15 on 20-3-08 here [11]

The volume and numerical number of tactics was so enormous that I decided to sit back and watch, and later presented my response here at 04:16 on 24-5-08 [12], and then Gordonofcartoon dismissed my 2500 word response 8 hours later with the words “Please cut this readable length” here [13], and they continued incessantly down the discussion page from the same day here [14] and added another 7 topics of criticism. I was considering which ones to deal with on a priority basis, and in due course took my final response to the COI page but was 15 minutes late. The decision had been made without me being there.

Please advise me if I have 8 hours, or 2 weeks to respond here, so that I can time things better in this new policy matter (how many policies are there in wikipedia?) In the meantime I will add some more later to dayPosturewriter (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewrtier

Jaysweet; I have responded to your question on my User talk page as forecast earlier today, and will respond further, but would appreciate a time frame. ThankyouPosturewriter (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Given the obfuscating verbiage thrown at the topic [15], with an excessive proposed time frame - "I will then consider my response in due course (in the next 2 to 4 weeks preferably" - I'm of the strong opinion that we're being jerked around here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; I don’t think it is appropriate for you to be acting as a referee on a matter in which you are part of the dispute; re your non - neutral point of view, and your obvious conflict of interestPosturewriter (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Quit Wikilawyering. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can comment here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet and Ncmvocalist; Please understand that I spent two hours yesterday providing several different responses to several different matters because of the ambiguity of the situation where I got the impression that a decision was to be made by you within 8 hours. I was not obfuscating (Gordonofcartoons words), but gave several clear answers to multiple criticisms that were designed to be obfuscating in an attempt to confuse me (and you, the referees). My reasons for requiring a time frame were related to previous experience where I have prepared responses to matters which were decided before I posted them. Decisions have also been ambiguous. re; the COI cases did not end with a final clear statement of outcome. I am asking you how long this new matter takes so that I can plan a response in a day, or a week, or a month etc. I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can’t say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another. I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don’t wish to change it I will leave it there. Posturewriter (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

I probably should have been more clear when I said "make a decision on how to close this." I had assumed that either you would graciously choose to remove the section in question from your Talk page, or else you would unambiguously tell us to piss off, in which case I would suggest possible follow-up options to GoC if he wanted to pursue the issue. I suppose a compromise was also possible.

But what really happened is that the two of you generated a whole lot of text :D Partially, you are trying to convince us that what you say on your Talk page is accurate -- which is not really the point. Accurate negative stuff about another user doesn't belong on your talk page, unless it is temporary, e.g. if you were preparing to file a user conduct RfC or take a case to WP:ANI or something.

Ncmvocalist suggested as a possible compromise that we explore the possibility of striking negative commentary about you that has appeared elsewhere, as a show of good will if you remove this section. I can't guarantee anything (generally talk page archives are not modified, but if the involved parties agreed, it is not out of the question) but would you at least be amenable to this possibility? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist suggested ...

Where was that suggested? I'm not sure that's appropriate. If there's negative commentary about Posturewriter elsewhere that's untrue and/or in breach of policy, it should be dealt with anyway, so no need for a deal.

Why should we have to placate an editor who has posted inappropriate material - including bad faith assumptions and unproven accusations of sockpuppetry - and whose agenda has repeatedly been assessed as tendentious from the word go? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my fault, I was thinking of a different WQA where an editor was falsely accused of sockpuppetry, and then subsequently put up an attack page about his accusers. His argument was that all of the false accusations of sockpuppetry were still floating around and it was unfair for those to remain but for his rebuttal to be removed, so Ncm suggested removing all of it as a compromise. Totally different case, and you're right that that suggestion wouldn't work here. My fault.

Uh so.... hrm. Unfortunately, the method for tackling these sorts of user pages, where they aren't quite attack pages, but they certainlty don't foster good will, has not really been hammered out. I can think of at least two or three ongoing cases right now...

How would you feel if Posturewriter moved it to a subpage? Would that still be unacceptable? (It's okay if it is, I'm just trying to find a compromise first because right now enforcement on this sort of thing is just not really happening, I'm afraid...) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

Resolved

 – It appears GHT has gone ahead with the split, and everyone who had objected has moved on. The original alert is a moot point. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Polaron keeps reverting my WP:BOLD edits in reconstructing a page for I-587. He keeps reverting the edits to embed I-587 within NY 28. That is a very narrow view to place an interstate on a state route page. That can be very confusing to those looking at interstate pages from the rest of the country. I know I'm from Wisconsin and am an Interstate geek. I want to know about I-587, not some rural state route. Most of the writers from this page have a narrow view here. Frankly, I believe the writers just put I-587 into NY 28 so that it would make feature level. That is wrong. We try our best on Wiki not to confuse the reader and a redirect to I-587 does that. I suggest Polaron and other writers get into this discussion instead of ignoring me and constantly reverting my edits. That is wrong!!! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing discussion at here. It is usually the case here at Wikipedia that the status quo be maintained until it is shown that a consensus has changed. This user is also possibly a sock puppet as the user is new and is suddenly aware of the dispute without having ever participated in the discussion. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm an interstate nerd and I've seen you revert several edits. The Interstate page should remain as the default until a discussion is finished. And Polaron has violated the three revert policy. See here. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a formal discussion in progress, no involved party (i.e. neither of you) should be doing related reverts either way.

That said, there is some precedent when the discussion involves a potential merge to leave the page unmerged during the RfC, so that people can more easily see what the unmerged page looks like. Note that I am not proscribing this course of action, and I would caution both editors once again to refrain from further edit warring. But I am floating this possibility in case Polaron would be amenable to leaving the original article intact for now on those grounds. Thoughts? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifyin that this not a potential merge but a potential split. The original state that has not in dispute for a long time is what I am restoring. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I understand your point about defaulting to the status quo. There is no official policy on this, but in the case of content you are right that it is usually done that way. In the case of a merge or a split, it is sometimes useful to leave the page in question as a separate article, to help new participants in the discussion locate it.

There's no policy mandating that, either, it's just a suggestion. The one thing on which there is a policy is edit warring, so I trust both of you are done reverting until the discussion at WT:IH concludes. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Have both articles present for people to see. It is confusing right now and the little blurb within NY 28 doesn't even give I-587 justice. And status quo is not going by a previous discussion that was strictly in the New York Routes forum. Wikipedia is a public place, not confined to a couple roadgeeks from New York who want to have things their own way. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep

Resolved

 – See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Has listed multiple images of mine for deletion. He's only going after mine. It is just a grudge he appears to have because I listed some articles he likes for an AfD. You can find the images in question on SS's contib page. How are my images any different than the one found on the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship for example? They are clearly under used under fair use like that one. If someone can respond to this that would be great. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this revision of BB's talkpage. I've explained what needs to be fixed and it hasn't happened. Hosting these images is clearly in violation of copyright and they need to be fixed or removed as happens to every other image on Wikipedia that is NF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This complaint is not within the scope of WQA. Please try WP:EA or WP:3O. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This isn't about the images per say. This is about Shep's proposal for my images to be deleted but not others of similar nature. That is a violation of wikiquette. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep has also violated the three revert policy of Wikipedia on those images. Look at the contribs. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not within the scope of WQA, and insisting otherwise will not make it otherwise. Please try the appropriate steps of WP:DR (for 3RR, WP:AN3 is the scope it would fall under). Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion pointed to this section. Third opinions requests should concern disputes where only two editors are involved. BurpTheBaby and StepShep are the two, but others have weighed in over the past few weeks, so WP:3O isn't really the best place to request assistance.

In any case, based on what I can read on various talk pages, it seems that BB needs to make sure that all uploaded non-free images are less than 300 pixels wide, and contain not only a copyright notice but a fair use rationale. The procedure for uploading images prompts you for this. Or you can look at the page source for a valid non-free image, such as Image:2008OpenLogo.gif, and use it as a template for your own image pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They've been deleted. User:Stepshep and User:David did not wait for discussion to be resolved, and did not give proper time for me to fill out long fair rationale paper work and did not give me proper time to re-size the images. It takes time! They clearly have precedent for existing! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Current images

Resolved

 – Despite some confusion about back-dating of tags, etc., everything worked out in the end and BtB is currently defending his fair use rationale in the proper venue --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep posted two more images of mine for deletion. I thus added the fair use rationale, but I think it should be brought to everyone's attention that tagged them today but marked them for July 9th. Therefore violating the 7 day policy. See the edit marked fix date and its the same here too. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the tag dates are wrong, and I consider it poor etiquette to provide misleading dates to artificially imply that more time has passed since the tag was placed. However, if this tag was put there by an automated tool or 'bot, it's possible that the wrong date is due to a software error. In any case, now you know what to do for future images to avoid getting them tagged at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do. They were clearly altered by Stepshep though. The tag wasn't put there by a bot, Stepshep noticed he missed two of my images and labeled them 7/9 on 7/16. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the modification of the date on the image tags was irregular and I have asked Stepshep to clarify. Let's not make a witch hunt out of this; even if Stepshep didn't have a good reason for it, you have fixed the fair use rationale and in the end no harm is done. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jay, and that is true, but if I could get the others that have already been deleted back, I'd fix those too. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16#Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg. Some support there would really help resolve this problem. I know exactly what I have to do with those images now and I can have them appropriately tagged in a 24 hour turn around. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured if BB was going to fix the images he would have atleast by now fixed the two he already uploaded (June 24). They were meant to be tagged with others from awhile ago; that information I did gather by bot. I altered the tags to try and keep everything together; in no way was I trying to fraud anybody. This will be my final comment on the matter. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly BB is new to the process. Your date change made it appear as if you were trying to accelerate the deletion process, or at the least indirectly violate WP:BITE. In the future, when you place a tag, date it correctly. Don't back-date it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much resolved. The back-dating of the no-fair-use tag was probably inappropriate, but since BtB caught it in time and was able to mount his fair use argument, it's a bit of "no harm, no foul" situation. Stepshep, if you are still reading this I'd just exhort you to probably not back-date tags anymore, even though I acknowledge your intentions were valid. If nothing else, it out of context it looks like an attempt to game the system, and I don't think there was enough of a benefit in keeping the debates dated the same to justify that appearance of impropriety.

In any case, everything has more or less worked itself out. I am marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past

• A Link to the Past (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

A Link to the Past has been continually rude and blatant towards others and biting newcomers despite being treated kindly. Specifically taking edits to Talk:List of Wii games personally and undoing any major changes made by others while having conducted his own un-discussed changes in the past. He will not change his attitude despite being told to many times by myself and others (even newcomers). Help would be appreciated. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is more about his attitude than his edits, do you want me to link to specific posts he's made that I feel are out of line? Including the majority of Talk:List of Wii games, he has repeatedly bitten other editors for making mistakes (Keep scrolling down on that link) and acted condescending towards me personally for attempting to calm him down. Otherwise, flipping through his contribs should suffice.

On the List of Wii games, his story changes each time he fires up. First his complaints were that it lacked specific dates for Australian releases, then he removed all other dates repeatedly and without discussion other than passing remarks in the edit summery ([16][17][18][19]), they were returned by me and other editors who saw this as either the wrong way to handle things ([20][21][22][23]). Then he complained that the article was too big, so the article was split into three ([24][25][26][27]). Sadly this WP:BOLD action was reverted with an incorrect assumption of the events surrounding it and Link's defense to this was "combined" the articles together were larger than the original article by itself (Which is not how Wikipedia regards article size). The discussion process for how to handle the article is moving along (And it's been a done deal between many of us for a while now), however he continues to talk down to everyone with a differing opinion and will not cooperate with the group. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after closer examination (particularly on the article talk page), I can see those problems. I'll first notify the editor of this WQA. Btw, have you considered filing an Article RFC or trying mediation per WP:DR? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's difficult to discern the difference between WP:DR and here. And the issue was more with his attitude, not the article. I have put requests for comment on the decision to split the article on the talk pages of the WikiProjects the article belongs to though. Thank you for your help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, I want to see his response to your concerns here first. And yes, this is a step in WP:DR, but we stick more to conduct issues and try to avoid content issues. (At the moment, I'm thinking both are linked quite a bit in this dispute, and if the content issues were resolved, it'd be less of a problem...but that isn't my final view.) Mediation deals more exclusively with content disputes, and sometimes, ideally, the manner of conduct of the parties changes during those proceedings, and the matter becomes resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I'm asking for help regarding his conduct. We've enough no-nonsense Admins in the Video games WikiProject to handle any edit disputes. I agree that the bulk of his friction should go away once the article edits are said and done but I've seen him go off half-cocked on other things before. He's... passionate, I just wish he'd extend that energy into working with everyone else instead of against. Thanks again for the help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon—Repeated deletion of relevant, cited facts without cause

Resolved

 – Wikiquette issues are resolved. Taivo's reversions were acceptable. Ongoing content issue discussions are at Talk:Book of Mormon. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Concerns about WP:OWN:

• One editor, Taivo, insists that edits to Book of Mormon be cleared at the talk page first, and says "you have no inherent right to change this article" (my emphasis).

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks): link, link, link

Concerns about WP:PRESERVE:

• Deletion of relevant well-cited facts from the article Book of Mormon without specifically addressing the content that they are deleting, or citing Wikipedia policy that would justify the deletions.

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks): link, link

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you citing those sources here? It's just adding clutter. Please try to better summarize the breaches in etiquette, because it isn't entirely clear. El_C 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this is clearer. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the full comment from Taivo was "You have no inherent right to change this article on your personal whim and according to your clear anti-LDS agenda." I agree that it was poor phrasing, but I think the point he was trying to get across is that part of the WP:BRD cycle (please see the link) is the R portion of it. If you boldly make major changes to an article, that is fine -- but if it is a highly controversial article that editors have worked a long time to get to a neutral state, you should not be surprised or upset if you are reverted.

I think some of your proposed changes to Book of Mormon are reasonable, but I suggest with such a highly controversial article, you discuss the changes one by one on the talk page and try to get a consensus, rather than adding them all at once. The totality of your changes significantly skews the neutral tone of the article, even if all of the information is factual (see WP:UNDUE for how it is possible for factual information to be pov).

And, if you can't get consensus on the talk page, don't worry too much... It's not like anybody is going to be a believer, then hear the details of the Martin Harris story and change their mind. Faith doesn't work that way. Those who truly believe in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon will find a way to incorporate these facts into their worldview, and those of us who don't buy into it really don't need more convincing. For those approaching it from a purely rational viewpoint, the story rather speaks for itself, even without your proposed additions -- don't you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with WP:BRD, but it's the D-part that we're have difficulty getting to—we seem to be stuck at the to-be-avoided-forth stage of "opposition with little or no supporting evidence" in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. These facts are among the first to be found in most reliable sources describing the Origin of the Book of Mormon, so I do believe that there's an important place for an NPOV representation of this history, which has nothing to do with "convincing" people one way or the other. Frankly, it's an opportunity for the LDS crowd to provide a plausible version of this history, now known to many if only for South Park's representation of it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page and one problem is that your RfC may suffer from a WP:TLDR problem. There are just so many issues being tackled at once.

One issue is that the Martin Harris thing seems more appropriate for Origin of the Book of Mormon than the actual BoM article, but I notice it's missing there, too, which is problematic. The "lost plates" story is a rather significant part of this story, both from an LDS and non-LDS perspective. I agree that it seems to belong either in one place or the other. I can back you up on that on the talk page.

Some of your other edits are more problematic. For instance, the Christopher Hitchens quote is just not going to fly. Even though you are quoting another journalist, it is highly pov and clearly intended to present the information in the most negative light. The presence of Indian burial grounds and treasure-diviners in the Palmyra area around that time period is potentially interesting, but again I think it is more appropriate in Origin of the Book of Mormon, and even then we need to take care about the reliability and neutrality of the sources (I'd have to look at that point more in depth).

In any case, I'd definitely recommend to pick one small issue first, and work to get that changed, and then move from there. I cannot fault Taivo and others for the reverts, because the overall effect of your edits was to skew the tone of the article away from neutral -- even if some of the individual modifications are salvagable. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR—love it. Thanks much for your thoughts. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of the Book of Mormon might also be a good place to edit. I don't think the article is NPOV, but given the vehemence of the arguments, I wouldn't do much there personally. And Jaysweet is quite correct. Mormons believe in the BOM, even though there isn't a scintilla of historical or archeological proof, and that's the point of faith. You write anything against that faith, and you'll not get far. The historicity article is much more interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that the current Book of Mormon article is not NPOV, but I don't think Ecrasez's proposed version was either (e.g. the Christopher Hitchens quote). That's why I still suggest taking it issue by issue -- if anybody has the energy to do so, of course :D --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the energy. The lead of the article should have a sentence or two that there is no archeological evidence supporting the historicity of the document. But that's a battle that ends up being faith vs. verifiability. I wonder if the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica deal with these kind of issues?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is DNA evidence that completely contradicts it, for which the researcher was excommunicated: Template:Cite article I'll go edit in that WP:VF and watch what happens. The Book of Mormon article violates completely the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV:

content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have my personal POV on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and it's probably close to yours. And yes, you are correct what NPOV says. However, and this is very subtle, the NPOV of a mythical document is just to describe the myth--where NPOV comes into play is whether one version of the myth takes precedence over another. See Noah's Ark, where it is a factual discussion of the myth. The historicity article is where you discuss the verification with reliable sources. I hope this helps.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• A general comment. Obviously this is going to a contentious issue with lots of POV flying both ways, but this is WQA - not a forum for working out content issues. So in the event of specific name-calling or other such wikiquette violations between involved editors, this is an appropriate venue. But a general discussion of what constitutes reasonable content is beyond the purview of this page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The initial issue was an WP:OWN concern regarding Taivo's reversions, but I think the reversions were acceptable -- he did not 3RR, he explained his concerns on the talk page, and Ecrasez's reverted edit had a few major pov problems (e.g. the Hitchens quote). So that much is resolved; the content dispute is unresolved, but should be discussed at Talk:Book of Mormon. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (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.

User:Loonymonkey

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Filing party advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looneymonkey has engaged in a fairly hostile long term editing pattern on pages related to the 2008 US presidential election. Tonight, he on multiple occasions removed a properly sourced news article from politico.com[28], accusing me of edit warring and labeling the article a "blog editorial".[29]. He did this in a manner that pushes 3RR and would push me toward 3RR if I would correct his edit. This last edit was either intentional deceit or gross negligence on his part, and reflects a POV mentality with which he has been approaching pages.Trilemma (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised (or maybe not) to find this thread here. I will not go into further details about it even so this editor [Trilemma] accused me and "threatened" me to file a complaint about me here. too. After thinking about it I offered him a "private" discussion by e-mail with the intention to straighten things out and was delighted to get a positive response from him (that seems to show his willingness to further discuss this kind of issue). Therefore I will wait to see if something positive comes out of it and will share the outcome here (w/o exposing any correspondence between him and me of cause). Till then I'll stay neutral. Regards --Floridianed (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not in the right place. If you feel that there are conduct issues on the part of Loonymonkey, for issues outside of the scope of WQA such as edit-warring, you'd need to go through RFC on user conduct - here we only cover civility issues as the page states. In any case, note the policy on edit-warring and remember the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It's not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert...etc. For content issues, per WP:DR, you'd need to try Article RFC or mediation as it's also outside of the scope of WQA. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

89.1.240.199

Resolved

 – User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[30]. Could be related to User talk:71.53.113.13, the only place I've said anything recently that I can remotely imagine ticking someone off. Anyway, as the target of the incivility, I'm not the one to give a warning. - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably better to pass it to WP:SSP or to a checkuser on that issue, but I've warned the 89 ip about personal attacks. Leave an update if the personal attacks or incivility continues. And don't worry about secure diffs like that in the future - ones like this are fine. Thanks for being concise! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much always log in secure, so if I grab a URL, it's pretty much always the secure one. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Addresses 62.64.200.0 - 62.64.239.255

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – "Handled at an3 and at talk pages. El_C 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)