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 discussions

Talk:Broadsword_(disambiguation)#August_2012_cleanup

• Trofobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Broadsword_(disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Broadsword_(disambiguation)#August_2012_cleanup

Recently Trofobi made an edit, which I reverted. He/she instantly reverted it back, which as far as I understand is against policy or at least bad form. I re-reverted it, which is probably rather bad, and He/she instantly reverted it back again, but at least started a discussion. Sadly said discussion has gone badly. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of why the edit was made, and the motivation for the reverts, but Trofobi has repeatedly refused to answer. Also, I have been baselessly accused of certain actions and motivations, but that is not really important and may be ignored for the purposes of this request. As to diffs and the such... Well, the section of the talk page, listed above covers everything rather well and it's not that long.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy against immediately reverting someone, especially when the revert includes an edit summary besides the default "undo" message, and especially when the first edit is against consensus. According to the page history, you made the first edit which Trofobi reverted, citing the Manual of Style in his edit summary. You then restored the edit calling the MOS "merely a guideline," which Trofobi (rightfully) reverted. Had I been there, I would have reverted you as well. There has been significant discussion on the talk page, Trofobi was just restoring the article to the version that met both local consensus (as established on the talk page) and site-wide consensus (which is what guidelines represent). There has been no wikiquette violation, but you have a serious case of WP:IDHT. There's no action to take here, except to draw WP:Boomerang attention to a potential edit-warrior (that'd be you, Zarlan). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is simply not true. This is the first edit.

What you call the first edit, was my revert of that first edit, made by Trofobi.

As to re-reverting a revert of ones edit, I cite from What BRD is and is not: "Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.". Besides, even if it were not so, it's still very much bad form. Nevertheless, that's not the issue at hand. The issue is that Trofobi refuses to discuss the matter. He makes responses, but doesn't answer any questions, makes baseless assertions, and won't explain what he does or why.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I see discussion on the article talkpage ... including Trofobi. We go by WP:CONSENSUS here ... try and obtain consensus for your changes dangerouspanda 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How can there be discussion if one party is refusing to explain anything or answer any questions or anything? Which questions has Trofobi answered? What explanations for his edits has Trofobi made? Any explanation that the previous version didn't comply with MoS is entierly pointless, unless Trofobi will explain what part and how of the MoS it doesn't comply with (something I have repeatedly asked for, which Trofobi refuses to answer). Furthermore, Trofobi claimed that the previous version lacked some information, despite his edit actually removing information and not adding any (he did add a few links, sure, but my reverts didn't remove those. Well one did, but I immediately put them back. Either way, those added links are rather a separate issue, as far as I see it).

As to trying to get consensus... The previous version had been there for quite a while, thus making it consensus. Then Trofobi made a significant edit, going against consensus as the change hadn't been discussed in advance (which is hardly required). I reverted the edit back to the old consensus. Trofobi didn't agree with this. That means that there was a disagreement. If there is a disagreement, that should be discussed. Trofobi didn't do this, but rather re-reverted. Something that the WP:BRD article indicates is against policy. Even if it isn't, it's rather bad form and arrogant. It's kinda like the attitude of a kindergarten argument "yes it is! no it isn't! yes it is! no it isn't![...and so on]". You may think that you are right, but you can't just insist that your right and take your version of things and try to bulldoze it through. Thus I had no reservations to reverting it back again, though I should probably have handled it differently. Once discussion started, though, I at least tried to engage in it. Sadly it didn't turn into a dialogue. I takes two to tango. It's just monologues right now.

As I asked in the talk page:

• What new information did my reverts remove? Trofobi claims the old version was lacking information, I have asked what lacking info that may have been, but Trofobi refuses to answer.
• What misleading/outdated links were replaced, and in what way were they misleading/outdated? Again Trofobi has claimed he/she did that. I have asked what lacking info that may have been, but Trofobi refuses to answer.
• What part of MoS is relevant. Trofobi's main argument for the edit was the MoS. I have asked repeatedly about this, but Trofobi refuses to answer.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Except that it is not making an exceptional claim, the author may be wrong in dispute raising or not, but as far as content ONIH is wrong because it is not unduly self-seving or "an exceptional claim" as much literature would exist that would broadly agree with their self-denigration as being " democratic libertarian", and I don't see how stating what end of the political spectrum a party is is unduly self serving, for example it is the exact same as "the conservative party" caliming they "stand for conservative values" a self-published source is usable only when "making claims about themseleves" and it fufills neither the unduly self serving nor the exceptional claim clause as given above (exceptional claim is defined as one of a minority position that does not have significant reliable 3rd party back up, clearly this is not a minority position and would have reliable 3rd party agreement sources that would state similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Broadsword (disambiguation)

As already posted in my first edit on the article's talk page, the article changes have been discussed on the DAB-Project and Zarlan's second revert was not just reverting my edit, but also the edits of George Ho and JHunterJ. I only refuse to answer questions that I have already answered or that are clearly visible in the article history & talk. Especially when you, Zarlan, mess up also my talk page and post PA there - I even gave you the chance to fix that. --Trofobi (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

discussed on the DAB-Project? (I kinda missed that, but it hardly matters) No discussion on the articles talk page, or with any editors involved? (until the second revert, that is) I'm hardly impressed, nor do I see how it is, in any way relevant.

As to the claim that my reverts also reverted George Ho's and JHunterJ's edits... In the case of George Ho... He was essentially making sure that the article started by mentioning the main thing called a broadsword, and follow that with a "Broadsword may also refer to"-bit. This was true of the previous version I reverted to, so my revert wasn't really removing what he added. It just slightly rephrased it, and added more information. As to JHunterJ's edit... He was essentially making style fixes to your version, which were hardly applicable to the old version (as it was different and any style fixes would have to be reapplied, rather than copied). JHunterJ's edit being reverted was simply an unavoidable consequence of reverting your edit.

As to already having answered the questions... Could you show where you answered any of the questions I have mentioned here? And remember: Other people are not the same as you are. What you personally know or consider obvious, isn't true of others. --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(Subsequent contributions were originially posted on my talk page, but upon my request now moved here with Zarlan's permission. --Trofobi (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

You can deal with the headline-mess. You can delete the whole thing if you want. It's you talk page. The important thing is that I've notified you.

As to a personal attack... I don't see one. Could you please explain in what way I have done such a thing? (but then, given that you haven't answered any other question I have asked, I'm not expecting much) I remind you that you are required to assume good faith (that being a fundamental principal of wikipedia, for good reasons that fully agree with). If there is a personal attack, then surely the Wikiquette Assistance will be able to identify and deal with it? Thus I see no problem there, and if you were to try and take things in your own hands would, no doubt, seem rather inappropriate ...and would probably make everyone more inclined to think that you are acting in a uncivil manner. In other words: I wouldn't recommend doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now I see what might have made you say I made a personal attack! The mention of trolling. Well, you did talk about the MoS, while repeatedly refusing to answer. In a reply where I requested an explanation for the n:th time, I said that further refusal would mean I'd have to check if there is a way to report trolling. "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict."

Oh course one could argue that, given that trolling has to be "deliberate and intentional", I am failing to assume good faith ...but really. You were asked a basic and reasonable question. Repeatedly ...and repeatedly refused to give an answer. I didn't assume bad faith, I was simply given strong, repeated, indications of it ...but whether you really have been trolling, or otherwise uncivil, I'll leave to the Wikiquette Assistance.

Speaking of which, I would like to point out to you a few things from Wikipedia:Etiquette (directly copy-pasted) that are, or may be, relevant:

• Work towards agreement.
• Do not make misrepresentations.
• Do not ignore reasonable questions.
• If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
• Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.
• Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except where exemptions apply. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
• When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes
• Amend, edit, discuss.
• Remind yourself that these are people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by TheRedPenOfDoom at List of unusual deaths

• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• List of unusual deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list article, for which TheRedPenOfDoom has repeatedly blanked successive entries. This is claimed to be about sourcing, or maybe definition of the list, or else WP:MOS issues, but that precise issue seems to be somewhat fluid. Multiple reversions by a number of separate editors.

Raised at Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#Fail_WP:IINFO_and_Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.2FLists, although not a fruitful discussion.

This is nowhere near a useful discussion about the improvment of an article, it's just one editor alone bitching pointlessly about anything they can hang the most tenuous link to any random policy. Such notable deaths as St Lawrence, Jan Palach and the crew of Soyuz 11 have been blanked - these people have city squares named after them. As a policy issue, then it's generally accepted that referencing for list entries can depend substantially upon sources within a substantive linked article on each list entry. This behaviour is pretty much the antithesis of collaborative editing, it's just disruptive petulance. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No one has presented any rationale or discussions that prevent basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V from applying or being applied to this article. As far as user actions that deserve to be discussed at Wikiquette one may wish to consider this edit which was followed by an AfD nomination which appears to have been instigated by trolling through my contributions to find a tit for tat. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So you think that this is an acceptable article, meeting our standards or notability and verifiability, but you still wish to delete List of unusual deaths? Obviously I found this by looking at your edit history, but there's hardly any need to invoke "tit for tat" to see reason to delete it! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No i dont. thats why i !voted to redirect -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Andy, retaliatory AfD's are childish and in incredibly poor taste, and greatly diminish your credibility. Frankly, I consider what you did a much greater breach of Wikiquette than anything TRPOD did. It sure does look like "tit for tat" to me, even though I would have voted to redirect if the AfD had not been retaliatory. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus. AfD retaliation makes me shake my head in dismay. Jusdafax 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Retaliation" would have been to AfD one of his other two created articles for deletion, only because it was his. As you rightly say, that's not on. However having seen the state of an article that was no more than an unreferenced "See also" section, I certainly wasn't going to leave it lying around. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I too have been rather dismayed at TheRedPenOfDoom's modus operandi of "delete first, discuss later" (if discuss at all). Collaboraive editing would suggest a search for a source if none is given, or at least additon of a {cn} tag. I'm sure that it may be difficult to get this article to fit in with the standard pattern of articles, but that does not mean it's worthless. TheRedPenOfDoom suggested, quite rightly, that the criteria for inclusion, at the top of the article, were not clear. But instead of engaging in a detailed debate about how to improve these, at the Talk Page, he began a series of unilateral deletions, for a variety of supposed reasons. Thi8s seems a bit back-to-front. This is not an artcle that has just sprung up over-night. As for AndyDingley's proposed AfD - I don't see how this can be considered "tit-for-tat" when this article has not even been nominated by TheRedPenOfDoom as an AfD. I had thought that Andy may have been trying to point out that other articles may be "borderline" cases, and that to defend one over another might be seen as hypocritical. (But he's now just clarified his actions above and any editor is free to AfD at any tme, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Jan Palach already meets WP:N and WP:V. Long established practice for list articles is that if the individual entry is linked to a substantive article on that topic specifically, and there is good sourcing within that article, then that's adequate sourcing for the list too. Are you going to AfD Jan Palach and Soyuz 11 as non-notable or not? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On several occasions sources have been requested to be copied here, from the substantive article, to avoid an entry being removed as "unsourced". I think the policy should be made clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason not to copy sources from Jan Palach to the list, should an editor consider it worthwhile. It's not necessary, but it's certainly not discouraged.

There is no reason why The Red Pen of Doom couldn't have done just this.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever sourcing might exist in other Wikipedia articles it is up to the person adding or restoring content to an article to supply the sources for that particular article and not my job to do it for you. And dispite your claims to the contrary Items in lists are required to be sourced, just as any other content is.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You have completely failed to understand WP:CIRCULAR

Your approach here appears to be, "When encountering unsourced content, it is better to repeatedly blank that content against the opposition of multiple editors than it is to copy the linked sources that are already available to you". This is not an approach that should garner much support. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

= it's my job to do the easiest thing, which may infuriate a few other editors but, hey, who cares? Surely, no-one wants to be a Jobsworth? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what is being proposed here: I am somehow responsible for the fact that people are infuriated that they are being asked to do the work to keep their pet article up to the basic standards required by Wikipedia for all content. Is that accurate? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be "asking" other editors snything, but are just deleting material because you think this whole article should not actually exist. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what is being proposed here, rephrased: I am somehow responsible for the fact that people are infuriated that they will have to do the work to keep their pet article up to the basic standards required by Wikipedia for all content.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a proposal, it's an observation. But yes, I think they'd prefer to be asked, rather than see a string of edit summaries saying simply "unsourced". Especially when there are question marks, raised by you yourself, about what the criteria for inclusion should be, and how these should be explained at the top of the article. But it's not "my pet article", it's just another one that I think should be improved rather tha deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. The editors have now been formally asked to provide appropriate sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I'm offended by a lack of sourcing, then I'll add sources. I might even remove the item, but I'm yet to see one which warrants this.

As I don't have a problem with Jan Palach demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY (that utterly trivial Wikipedia-only shibboleth that the real world laughs at) via its own extensive article, then I'm unlikely to feel any need to add to it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine for you not to add sources, I cannot and will not attempt to force you to do so. H However, you should not return content to articles without providing sources, and if you do not provide sources, and no one else does either, you will need to then abide by the fact that the content may (probably will) be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And in the spirit of creating a collaborative editing effort, I would ask that editors refrain from comments such as this one and focus on how/whether the content of the article can be brought into agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was a bit sexist, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has now taken over and is removing all entries which are not described as "unusual" by the supporting source. There has a very small amount of discussion on the Talk Page that this might be used as a criterion for adding, but no clear consensus has been reached. I don't think it's really acceptable for one editor to decide a new criterion for acceptability and to then apply it unilaterally, when that criterion has not been agreed and is not clearly given at the top of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

correct way to proceed.

Please see:

1. [1]

   [2]

   User talk:190.212.229.61

I've a feeling I could have done a much better job, and may have violated 3RR myself while trying to undo vandalism. I would appreciate guidance as to what "best practices" may be in this situation. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)