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:Cali567

Resolved

 – User advised by Jaysweet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove two people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the 'trying to kill the debate by removing two people who disagree with him/her'? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you read Dúnadan's Talk page. Cali567 was clearly trying to instigate an false accusation against me, and Cali567 wanted Dúnadan to be part of this instigation. Cali567 solution to the discussion I had with him/her was clearly getting me ban from Wikipedia through a false accusation of Sockpuppetry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just notice that you talked to Cali567, and the reply of Cali567 still shows his/her intent. Cali567 didn't mention me, who sent this Wikiquette alert, instead he/she mentions the other user who he/she accuses me of controlling. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may, in a situation like this admins will ask for DIFFs to make it easier for them to see what's going on. Just telling them to read someone's talk page or go through their entire contributions list isn't enough direction, even if you feel like it would be obvious. It helps to show uninvolved admins exact instances of the behavior you're referring to, that'll help them quickly. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, I didn't know what DIFFs were. Okay then, here is the DIFF where Cali567 left his/her message to Dúnadan: [1], and here is the DIFF which Cali567 left in my talk page: [2]. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cali has been advised and has stated that he feels he crossed the line with some of his comments. I have advised Cali that he may want to consider an WP:RFC to resolve the content dispute.

Lehoiberri, do you feel this resolves your issue? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! Cali567's response to Dayewalker (here's the DIFF:[3]) his/her response does not mention me, just the person he/she accuses me of controlling, basically showing this user's intent. I didn't remove the study outright, like that other user did, I just removed Cali567's manipulation of the study (claiming Mestizo majority or large Mestizo population). This user has been quite rude to me, especially he/she doesn't mention me in the response. Cali567's comment in the response "Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible", so he/she does not regret trying to start a smear campaign to get me ban from wikipedia. Am I being a little overexaggerated, yes, but I not going to be harassed by a bully like Cali567. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So what would you like to see happen? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved?! So wikipedia allows bullying and smear campaigns, and let the user get away with it?! So sad! Lehoiberri (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehoiberri -- what would you like to see happen? I am trying to be helpful here, but other than saying that some his comments were over the line (though not so egregious IMO that it is blockable), I don't see much else that can be done.

In any case, if you want administrative action, this is not the place to ask for it. You can always try your luck at WP:ANI, but I can tell you right now that since Cali has admitted he probably crossed the line and has not resumed the behavior, it is unlikely that anything is going to be done.

Please answer my question what would you like to see happen? before you continue to criticize and complain. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User PainMan

• PainMan (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Just leaving a heads up that I have warned PainMan (talk · contribs) for continued hostility and incivility. I won't bother to detail all of the violations here, but a quick browse through his contribution history (especially in the User Talk namespace) will give a good indication of my concerns. Comments from additional editors might be helpful. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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 [4]. 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:[5], 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)

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.[6] (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[7], 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.[8][9]

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.[10] --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)

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 [11] They just kept going relentlessly here [12] and from 10:15 on 20-3-08 here [13]

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 [14], and then Gordonofcartoon dismissed my 2500 word response 8 hours later with the words “Please cut this readable length” here [15], and they continued incessantly down the discussion page from the same day here [16] 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 [17], 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)

User:Truthsayer62

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I submitted a group of articles under the AfD Process, and this user took offence, by removing the templates from the said articles, and now has started to edit my own user page. I'm not impressed by such activity. What do I do? (20040302 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

If his disruptive conduct stops, then that's that. If not, take it to WP:ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment on your User page, I think he just meant to put it on the User Talk page. Not sure if it was that he pressed the wrong button or if that he was unaware of the policy, but in any case I have moved the comment to your User Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's as if you read my mind; I thought the exact same thing. I went back in his contributions and he knows what a talk page is (he's been on a few), so I wasn't sure what the story was. Anyway, the move resolves that issue for now. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ncm, jaysweet - thanks - wow you were fast.. Should I have posted my issue directly up on WP:ANI? Was it not a Wikiquette issue? (20040302 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

The posting on the User page could arguably be a Wikiquette issue, although I'd say it was a mistake.

The removal of AfD tags is a technical issue that is explicitly prohibited by policy. Wikiquette alerts is more for handling civility issues and things like that, and we sometimes handle other things where there is a gray area and maybe we can work things out by just discussing with users.

For the removal of the AfD tags, it's not a civility issue, and it's entirely unambiguous -- removal of the tag while the discussion is still underway is not allowed, especially not by someone who has participated in the discussion. Probably you do not need to report it to ANI right away, but you should warn the user about it (as you did) and if he persists despite multiple warnings, you would then report it to ANI for administrator action. I hope this helps clear up the confusion! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

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

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

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)

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.

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

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)

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 ([18][19][20][21]), they were returned by me and other editors who saw this as either the wrong way to handle things ([22][23][24][25]). Then he complained that the article was too big, so the article was split into three ([26][27][28][29]). 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)

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

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)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I re-blanked the ip's page, per their wishes. Please stop adding templates to it. Moving and removing comments from both sides has been an issue here. Please be mindful of newcomers' sensitivities. El_C 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.226.169.187

Anonymous IP editor making uncivil attacks and accusations in edit summaries [30], harassing editor who was attacked [31] and continuing to harass editor by reverting removal of attacks from user talk page.[32]--Vidkun (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the ip has decided to disengage and withdraw, at least for now. El_C 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's best if others do not continue to restore the comments the ip removed (now a 2nd time), and let the ip editor disengage. Thx. El_C 10:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vidkun, it seems the IP is relatively new to Wikipedia so we should try to assume good faith. I've given him/her the Welcome message and pointed out that getting familiarized with the relevant policies and guidelines might be a priority given the above. It should be resolved for now, but if it isn't, let us know. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith; however, I don't think getting familiarized with the relevant policies and guidelines might be a priority given the above is really the issue with this "new to wikipedia" editor, as they seem to have a familiarity with both policy (using the word POV in their second and third edits ever on wikipedia) and the ongoing problem of academic boosterism and peacock terms on the VMI page, as evidenced by the commentary of "watering down" which was used, in the past, by a number of editors who have made similar arguments (some of which had to be addressed to mediation). Good faith is hard to assume, when, in asking for citations for claims, editors get insulted, and pointed at references which make no claim that the editor tried to cite.--Vidkun (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It is difficult to assume, but we should still try. :) It's never been a requirement or prerequisite for editors, regular or random anons to know or even have read policies and guidelines - although it's preferred if they have, for both their own sake and the encyclopedia's. Sometimes editors can go on for over a year not knowing one particular policy, yet being perfectly familiar with something (perhaps more complex) like NPOV, so there's no certain way of knowing what they know or don't know.

In any case, sockpuppetry is unfortunately a problem on Wikipedia and assuming good faith is often difficult when it's suspected. Why not try WP:SSP? If you have a genuine doubt or legitimate concern, then there'd be no problem with that (and would probably eliminate the need for coming here if successful). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Oni Ookami Alfador

Most of Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attacks against me occured a while back, but today I discovered his personal attacks have continued against at least one other editor. Here is a summary in chronological order:

12:03, June 1, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: called me a whiner

13:09, June 1, 2008 - my 1st request for him to stop personal attacks: here

13:04, June 3, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: called me a hypocrite

13:21, June 3, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador templated a regular: here

04:39, June 5, 2008 - my 2nd request for him to stop personal attacks: here

04:43, June 5, 2008 - my 3rd request for him to stop personal attacks: here

07:53, June 5, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: called me an irritant in his edit summary

08:34, June 5, 2008 - my 4th request for him to stop personal attacks: here

07:39, June 24, 2008 - Oni Ookami Alfador's personal attack: against another editor

If Oni Ookami Alfador could tone down his personal attacks in the future, I think we all would find it very helpful. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing severe, in that month-old exchange (disengagement ought have happened half way into it). You say there's something recent...? El_C 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Against me, yes, a month old. Against another editor, much more recent, escalating within the past two days. No downward trend in incivility, insofar as I can determine. I just happened to stumble upon his latest dispute with the other editor (who, as a newbie, did not respond as appropriately as a seasoned editor would), but there may be other recent examples. I didn't want to look up all of Oni Ookami Alfador's contributions because I didn't want to appear to be cyberstalking. However, if you'd like me to do that research, I'd be happy to. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with a link to what happened today. El_C 11:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume Arthur is referring to the exhange which started with this and ended with this. Characterising this as an example of incivility worthy of censure is somewhat typical, considering the way the discussion on talk:Dell went. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like everything was going fine with that exchange until Oni Ookami Alfador involved himself in it, for no apparent reason and seemingly out of the blue. Nothing too severe, but there is no need to go look for tense interactions, either. El_C 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some issues with civility here, but there are some things that are kinda insignificant - things often get heated so you need to develop a tolerance for it, or move past it, even if it's ignoring it or dismissing it as utter BS.

It's generally preferrable not to template the regulars, but keep in mind that it's the norm never to strictly enforce this particular guideline. Did you point him to the relevant guideline?

Editors aren't required to read through all policies and guidelines (although it'd be helpful if they did!), so you need to WP:AGF and give them the benefit of the doubt. Your repeated warnings against personal attacks seem to assume that he knows WP:NPA - did you (or anyone else) actually point him to the policy? Or has he explicitly shown his understanding of this policy elsewhere by citing WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL in another discussion? (Btw, thanks for providing diffs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. At Talk:Dell, he often wikilinked to various policy guidelines, which gave me the impression that he was well aware of all guidelines. But I don't think he ever did so with WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL specifically. I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that he was well aware of the guidelines against personal attacks. In retrospect, I should have linked them for his easy reference. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no personal attacks and civility is a policy, but before commenting further, I'd like to give him a bit more time to make a response (if at all) to the concerns here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

As Jay correctly notes, there is no need to fragment the dispute resolution efforts when a user RfC already exists. Use it and its talk page (or beyond that, mediation, or arbitration) for followup issues. This board is for reports of a lighter nature; a user RfC is meant to be a more serious, intensive and extensive, step in the dispute resolution process, and you're already there. Thanks. El_C 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – There is already a user RfC on this --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith have been made repeatedly against me and others by User:Greg_L (see this RfC). Recently he has likened me to a drunk loudmouth and to an elementary school girl picking on boys on the playground because I complained about his incivility. I have until now tolerated his behaviour (occasionally asking him to tone down his language) but am not prepared to do so any more. On 15 July I asked him to stop. He replied almost immediately with further accusations against me on his talk page and on a cabal mediation page. User:Fnagaton has also made similar accusations, most recently on Greg_L's talk page. Could someone ask both of them to stop? Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Greg L did not call Thunderbird2 a drunken lout -- he was making an analogy tying to explain why some his contribs could come across as uncivil if taken out of context. It was probably not the wisest analogy, but TB2's characterization of the diff is a little inaccurate.

On the face of it, it appears Greg L has made some remarks that were somewhat inappropriate, although I don't see anything egregious or blockable. However, this appears to be a complicated case involving years of contention over a relatively trivial MoS matter, and accusations of tedentious and WP:POINTYy editing. Also note that all of the diffs TB2 provides are people accusing him of taking quotes out of context to make a case about another editor being uncivil, heh, so that makes me reluctant to recommend any specific remedies without further context. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, that's an RFC/U, i.e. a user conduct RfC. Nevermind, this is already way beyond the scope of Wikiquette Alerts. This is a place where we try to talk problems out and people are warned. If you're already at the user conduct RfC level, you're way beyond WQA. Best of luck at the RfC! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, not directly, but I find it offensive nonetheless, and he repeats accusations of bad faith unrelentingly. I agree with you that this is an ongoing problem, but I don't know how to solve it. As you say, Omegatron tried ANI first, and then went to RfC. That is why I recently made a request for mediation, and he has now covered that page with similar statements. I don't know where else to turn. What further context would you like to see? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read a little bit more of the debate at MOSNUM and I am beginning to sympathize a little bit with your position. I don't think GregL is being egregiously uncivil, but there seems to be a lot of bullying going on over at WT:MOSNUM (on both sides, FWIW, but probably more so on GregL's side)

But like I say, if Mediation and RfC/U can't solve it, WQA can't either. Most people who respond here are not even admins... :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I still hope that mediation may help. It's early days there, as a mediator has not yet been assigned. Should I just wait patiently and tolerate the yelling until a mediator comes along? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could always try making a report at WP:ANI if you think that any of this is admin actionable, but to be frank I have not seen anything that is egregious enough to result in a block. For the comments on the Mediation page, yeah, I would just ignore it, for sure. Nobody who isn't already involved is going to read that, except maybe a mediator. So just pretend it's not there and don't read it.

One thing that may make you feel better is that a lot of the recent stuff Greg L has added on the Mediation page and on his talk page is so long that nobody is going to read it. (I've tried three times now to read the recent comment on his talk page, and every time my eyes glaze over and I click elsewhere before I get to the end of it. Seriously! I almost made it through this last time...) So you really can safely ignore it; you don't have to worry about people reading it and getting a bad impression of you.

If he (or anybody else) starts doing something really disruptive, like leaving messages on your talk page, or unilaterally editing policy or reverting changes, etc., then that would be actionable. Right now, all I see is a lot of hot air... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this, or this? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, both of those conversations are from like a month ago, and I was referring more to ongoing disruption. In addition, I'm not really convinced Greg was in the wrong in that case. Your edits in that case were in violation of WP:MOSNUM as it stood at that point, and I think there was a legitimate concern of edit warring.

The thing that concerns me most about the debate at WT:MOSNUM is the lack of consensus on whether there was any consensus ;D I am hoping a mediator can straighten that one out.

I don't see that Greg has left any messages on your talk page for weeks, and you don't have to read his comments on the Mediation page. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 has been repeatedly misrepresenting other editors and despite Thunderbird2 being asked to stop he continues to to repeat it (please ask if you need a list of the diffs), ergo he is doing so deliberately. Deliberate misrepresentation of other editors can be seen as disruptive behaviour. Can someone please ask Thunderbird2 to stop trying to misrepresent other editors? Someone might also want to ask him to stop abusing the Wikipedia process by lodging these spurious alerts. Fnagaton 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Loonymonkey

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[33], accusing me of edit warring and labeling the article a "blog editorial".[34]. 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)