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

Wikihounding and Uncivil behavior from DreamGuy

Resolved

 – Filing party blocked for sockpuppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User:DreamGuy has been wikihounding my edits by taking my deprods to AfD. Now I understand and accept that that nominating an article for AfD is the right of any editor, but he is doing so only to article that I have deproded, and to articles that he had previously no activity in here, here, here, and here. This editor has also made uncivil comments against me that demonstrate that he is assuming bad faith against me (see here where he falsely states that I have "a long history of aggressively reverting redirects and other actions" to justify the fact that he has taken my deprod to AfD. Wordssuch (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wordssuch, let me start by saying that accusations of Wikihounding are very serious, so they should not be used casually. As such, I'm going to start off by WP:AGF and assume that DreamGuy is monitoring all articles that get PROD'd. He does, indeed, take a number of articles to AfD: From DreamGuy's contribs:

• 16:35, 19 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Churnalism ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churnalism. (TW)
• 16:18, 19 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia. (TW))

I could list more, but I wanted to show that you were not involved with one of those two, and there are a whole bunch of others as well.

On the diff of "incivility"...I can find no violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL there, could you please expand.

Finally, when you have any issue with another editor, you must try and resolve it directly with them first on their talkpage. Whenever you file a WQA complaint, you must also advise them so that they have a chance to respond. I will be notifying DreamGuy of this on your behalf. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact correction - I did deprod Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia, which was then AfD by DreamGuy. The "Churnalism" article is the only other article that DreamGuy brought to AfD. There are not "a whole bunch of others".

To expand on WP:Uncivil, DreamGuy publicly made false claims against me (as stated in my intro), and makes an assumption of bad faith against me in attempting to justify why he brought Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia to AfD, rather than just redirect. Wordssuch (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Wordssuch, you must try to resolve your issues with the editor directly prior to pursuing the next steps in dispute resolution. Same goes with notifying the subject of a WQA complaint; if you're reluctant to notify them yourselves, you're expected to at least state so in the complaint here so that someone else can notify on your behalf. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I did notify him on his talk page at 05:46, 20 April 2009 (see last entry on [1]. Curiously, this edit shows on his talk page, but does not show up the edit history. Is it possible that DreamGuy can edit the edit history? Wordssuch (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be because you left a message on his USER page, and not his TALK page. Someone else politely moved the entry from the userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of a ridiculous accusation coming from someone who was repeatedly warned about harassing me. In fact the the account seems to have been largely created to do just that, based upon his limited edits and how the early ones all targeted articles I created for Speedy deletion for no good reason, all of which were denied, and the ones that went to AFD were denied also. This user was also one of several accounts discussed on WP:ANI being either sockpuppet accounts or otherwise acting very bizarrely. His current talk page has multiple incidents of other editors concerned about his behavior deprodding articles for no good reason and hi user page is tagged for sockpuppet investigations by another editor (though, with his history of blanking the talk page, those may disappear soon too). For him to be complaining about anyone else is pretty rich. At any rate, with his history of bad edits, taking things to AFD to get more input would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, unless he's afraid of what others might decide.DreamGuy (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact correction - Only two of my early edits tagged articles for speedy delete (not "all" as stated by DreamGuy above), and both were tagged in good faith for what I thought to be good reasons. Fisrt, Metod Trobec, was a one sentence, unreferenced article [2]; and Laura Bell, a one paragraph, one sourced article about a subject notable for one-event [3]. Wordssuch (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Some were speedy, some were prods, some were AFDs... you varied your harassment, but it was clear you were targeting articles I created, as others pointed out to you, and which you removed from your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above comments from DreamGuy sums up my complaint against him for uncivil behavior (assumption of bad faith), and give his motives for wikihounding my edits now. His accusations against my account were discussed and found to be baseless [4]. I have intentionally stayed clear of DreamGuy, and I have had nothing to do with any of DreamGuy's edits for well over a month. Yet he is wikistalking me, and here he is bringing up the old baseless allegation to justify his actions of today. DreamGuy should not be blaming others to justify his own actions. Wordssuch (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the above comments from DreamGuy sum up your complaint about him for uncivil behavior, then I must say that there does not seem to be much basis to the complaint. Chillum 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And the sockpuppet accusation was not found to be "baseless," as he claims above, it was found to be moot as the Wordssuch account was no longer being used at the time. It obviously is being used again. And note that I was not the one who filed that report. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only was the accusation of socking not baseless, but just today it was proven via checkuser. This guy had been using a whole series of socks, including all the ones I identified on the ANI page, and most of them were being used to target articles I had edited for deletion or to revert edits I made on various articles for harassment purposes. The checkuser found more socks than had been reported as suspect, but they all match exactly who I mentioned in the ANI thread as acting suspicious. Azviz (talk · contribs) == Untick (talk · contribs) == Esasus (talk · contribs) == Wordssuch (talk · contribs) == Unionsoap (talk · contribs). Now we just have to b on th lookout for whatever new ones this person makes, since he probably won't just accept being blocked if past ations are any indication. DreamGuy (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2009 (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.

Persistent comments re editors rather than content

Stuck

 – Disagreement on whether this is a WQA problem or not. Suggest filing party file a request for clarification at WP:RFARB. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Tremello22 has been asked by multiple editors to "comment on content, not the contributor" (to quote WP:NPA). However, (s)he continues to make statements about other editors as part of discussions on article talk pages. These include vague insinuations of bias, and outright accusations of hypocrisy and bad faith. At the time of writing, the most recent example (the first of those listed below) was issued less than an hour after Tremello22 was reminded (by myself) to comment on content rather than contributors, and was in fact a response to that reminder.

• "So forgive me if I don't believe you when you say you aren't a circumcision advocate because your actions speak otherwise."[5]
• "I can only assume that you, as someone who is a circumcision advocate..."[6]
• "I realise you and Jake both share a pro-circumcision point of view..."[7]
• "Instead of being helpful, Jake is being deliberately difficult trying to stop this information being put in."[8]
• "You are being totally hypocritical."[9]" (when another editor raised this point on his/her talk page, Tremello22 responded, "If I think he is being hypocritical, I will say so."[10])

Jakew (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to see any violation of WP:CIVIL here ...? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Indirect vios; repeatedly referring to him as "circumcision advocate", "pro-cicumcision pov", etc. Those would warrant the subject being advised/warned. I also sense some assuming of bad faith. That said, I have not yet looked into the context of this which might justify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified

Yes. Incidentally, I wouldn't characterise these as examples of major incivility. In fact, they are relatively minor. I'm raising an alert because they are fairly regular (the above examples are just a selection from the past two months), and because Tremello22 persists in spite of being asked to stop. Jakew (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Content is not divorced form the contributor; an apologist for any position makes their perspective relevant. I don't see any WQA violation here, and I remind all editors that making unsubstantiated incivility accusations can itself be construed as uncivil. I'll amend my comment as necessary should further diffs show a breach of WP:NPA. Eusebeus (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear you're incorrectly assuming that the labels are accurate. Suffice it to say that they are not. This thread is about Tremello22's behaviour, not my viewpoints, but for what it is worth my actual viewpoint on circumcision is explained on my user page. I think this illustrates one of the reasons why labelling other editors is damaging: third parties may assume that the labels were accurate. I will notify Coppertwig, who was also labelled by Tremello22 in one of the above diffs, in case (s)he wants to add anything. Jakew (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In all my time at WQA, I've generally discouraged the use of labels to this effect because it can indeed have a damaging effect on the sense of mutual respect and camraderie that is expected at Wikipedia. Tremello22 has referred to Jakew as a "circumcision advocate"; Jakew's user page suggests a view that is neither pro or anti, and Jakew has presumably made statements to that effect. So now the burden should shift to Tremello22 to provide evidence as to why he felt it justified to refer to another user as a circumcision advocate; what "actions" did he feel "spoke otherwise"? If he could not provide any reasonable evidence, then strong assumptions of bad faith are a problem that come in line with civility issues. If he could provide such evidence, then this would be dismissed per Eusebeus. I consider that only the first 3 4 diffs count; I presume the rest are tied in with content and can be ignored. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified

Regarding the last two diffs, Ncmvocalist, I don't mind if they are disregarded, but I just want to briefly explain why I included them. It's possible that the "hypocritical" remark had something to do with content, but if so I must admit that I'm mystified as to what (I don't think it's obvious from the context). I would generally avoid accusing another editor of hypocrisy, for reasons of civility; I might instead express concern about the subject (eg., "I'm concerned that we apply consistent reasoning between this situation and situation X, as I think they're similar due to reason Y"). Regarding "being deliberately difficult", I regard this as an outright accusation of bad faith (and, apparently, an assertion of the ability to read other editors' minds). There are times, I must admit, when I suspect that another editor is being "difficult" on purpose, but I don't say anything, partly because I can't prove my suspicion, partly because I consider it more civil to at least pretend to assume good faith, and partly because saying something would only aggravate the situation. Jakew (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the talk page (quite interesting, who knew?) and what I see is a spirited content dispute and not a breach of civility. While it is correct that editors need to comment on the content, not the contributor, in the face of persistent reverts it is reasonable to adduce suggestions of a POV; those can be contested. That is fine in order to resolve differences and find common ground. In this instance, the article editors seem to be working through their issues in a detailed and civil way. It is very important for editors to recall that making an accusation of incivility is serious. WQA is not here to redress content disputes by other means which is what this seems to be. I have marked this accordingly as nwqa and archived the discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've unarchived this (temporarily). It appears I've been contacted on my talk page regarding this closure, and was asked to review it, though I'd already begun reviewing earlier. I'm not convinced that our attempt (if any) was sufficient in making this better for the involved parties. I want to fix some of my own comments and add a couple more, and I don't see any harm in holding off a close for a few more days to enable this. I also want to leave a greater opportunity for the involved editors to provide input per the request at my talk page. Will reconsider archiving after 72 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry: how is it not uncivil to continue to call someone a "circumcision advocate" after they've said they aren't and don't want to be called that? Tremello's remarks are repetitive and are commenting on the editor's motivation rather about behaviour. They're the type of comment likely to be annoying to the person being commented on. What may seem like relatively mild comments can get very annoying with repetition and in combination with content disputes and occasional editwarring. They violate the proposed remedies C1, C4, C5, C6 and C7 that a number of editors of the Circumcision page had agreed to here; note that Blackworm also endorsed the same proposed remedies further down the page. I encourage all editors not to apply labels to other editors, and not to claim they have certain motivations they themselves deny having. If there are problems with an editor's behaviour, please bring it up on the editor's user talk page and other appropriate dispute resolution fora (such as here!) rather than repeating it over and over again on an article talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• You have a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes incivility, and one that I hope is not generally shared in this project. Stating a belief that another editor is a "circumcision advocate" is simply that, a statement of belief, not something that could be considered insulting. It would on the other hand quite probably be considered uncivil if that were phrased as a "fucking circumcision advocate". See the difference? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. These remarks are a) about an editor rather than content, b) unnecessary, c) likely to be unwelcome, and d) known to be likely unwelcome. Consider this: if an editor said that he was a man on his talk page, and another editor accidentally described him as a woman, there's no inherent civility problem. But if the first editor corrected the second editor and asked him/her not to do that, it would be incivil for the second editor to repeatedly describe him as a woman. Repeatedly making personal remarks about someone that are known to be unwelcome is the essence of incivilty, and once it is known that they are unwelcome and inaccurate they become nothing more than name-calling. Decorating the remarks with expletives is best avoided, but in relative terms it doesn't make all that much difference. Jakew (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Being wrong and/or refusing to believe the statement of another editor is not uncivil. It is simply being wrong and/or refusing to believe another editor. It's high time these kinds of absurd interpretations of civility are reined in. If someone has advocated circumcision, or has been considered to have done so, then it is not uncivil to refer to that person as a "circumcision advocate", it is a summary of the facts. Personal remark =/= incivility. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This of course depends on use: "your edits to this article don't count because you're a circumcision advocate" would be an attempt to bully someone from editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The incivility in your example does not centre on the deployment of the phrase "circumcision advocate", but on the statement "your edits don't count". It is the latter which is uncivil, not the former, hence my conviction that this thread is yet another vexatious complaint encouraged by those with a far too wide-ranging definition of "incivility". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the diffs provided above, there's no bullying going on. Malleus Fatuorum is absolutely right. If there's no objection, I'll restore my archive of this discussion as not a civility issue. Eusebeus (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm sensing a legitimate disagreement here on whether this is the right sort of decorum to be using or not. I don't believe this is a vexatious complaint; it's made in good faith, and seems to be in line with the sort of thing you'd expect ArbCom to encourage. I would suggest that the user who filed this complaint file a request for clarification at WP:RFARB, given that ArbCom usually will end up looking at these sorts of gray areas of vios or non-vios, depending on how you look at it. Filing a clarification would involve citing any case that cites the principle "Decorum" or "Conduct of Wikipedia editors" or the like. I would not suggest seeking sanctions, or a case, but just a genuine request for clarification on how these particular examples would be treated by others, and they would've been considered by ArbCom. I intend on closing this particular WQA within the next 24 hours (or earlier) when I've finished revising my previous comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2009 (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.

Uncivil behavior by User:DreamGuy (again)

Resolved

 – Filing party blocked as sockpuppet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

DreamGuy is continuing to follow my edits, and has now called me a liar - which is a clear and blockable violation of WP:Civil. I have been been trying to avoid User:DreamGuy, but in this instance he has followed me into an AfD (the only one he took part in that day) to argue for the deletion of an article that I created. I challenge his misleading deletion argument logic, and disclose to the closing admin that DreamGuy has been wiki-stalking me. In response DreamGuy calls me a liar and falsely states that I have been blocked for harassing him, even though I have not harrased him and I have never been blocked. DreamGuy calls me a liar here. Esasus (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of your block log shows that you were blocked for 24 hours on April 9, 2009, by User:KillerChihuahua, for "Personal attacks or harassment". While the block log does not specify whether this was in respect to DG, at a minimum it is not correct that you have never been blocked. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This block was indeed, for harassing me... for continuing to post to my talk page insisting that I was a liar when what I said was accurate. See User talk:DreamGuy#An editor attempting to stack votes for the incident in question. The posts most directly related to his block were removed by an overseeing admin. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to correct my error when you posted here. Yes I was blocked for 24 hours, and it did involve DreamGuy. I was defending myself too aggressively when he called me a liar on his talk page here. As a result I have vowed to stay clear of DreamGuy because he baits me. Yet here he is again, following me into an AfD where he is the only editor who votes for delete, and then calls me a liar when he is challenged. Esasus (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tricky. If you want to complain about being called a liar, try to be make your posts more faithful to the truth - then you won't have to correct yourself later. Also, if you want to complain about incivility, don't do so in such a way that it draws attention to your own accusation of wikistalking - which, since it wasn't backed up by diffs, looks a lot like a personal attack on your part. I don't know what to advise here. Maybe you should quit while you're ahead, and withdraw this complaint. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge SheffieldSteel's very valid critique of my complaint. DreamGuy's negative record is long and exstensive. DreamGuy baits me and others. On April 9th I foolishly fell into the trap of responding to one of his baits, and I was blocked for it. Since then I have stayed away from him, but he has not stayed away from me. I hope my complaint will be judged on the recent uncivil behavior of DreamGuy, and not on other unrelevant factors. His confrontational style of editing and commenting results in unpleasant editing experiences for myself and other editors. Esasus (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, are Wordssuch and Esasus the same user? Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No. they are different users. Esasus (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Both users were part of the ANI report mentioned in the Wordssuch section above. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I will heed the good advise of other editors and I withdraw this complaint. In addition, I vow to stay away from DreamGuy as he is poison to my soul. Any other well intentioned advice on how I might best deal with User:DreamGuy when he follows or baits me is welcomed. Esasus (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The way to deal with bait is quite simple, although not always easy: don't take it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Remember, after repeatedly chumming to get its attention, the shark from Jaws ate the boat. The ocean always wins against the one dropping bait. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See section above where User:Wordssuch made the same complaints. This user has been permanently blocked as part of a drawer of socks. There was no baiting or harassment of him by me, just an accurate description of highly aggressive and highly suspicious behavior that has since been proven and taken care of... until he probably makes more socks. And Dlabtot and Arcayne both should probably spend more time making sure their own behavior follows policy than jumping on board any baseless complaint against me that comes along.... If I bothered to report wikihounding they'd be at the top (well, since the five user accounts all got blocked as socks anyway). DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Update – Esasus has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:31, 26 April 2009 (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.

Unexplained reverts; perhaps some hounding and advertising

Resolved

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

I edited the article on Steinway & Sons lately to remove what seemed like a great deal of advertising, but I've encountered a few problems with User:Fanoftheworld. As far as I can tell he added a great deal of the possibly NPOV material, and changes have been met with unexplained reverts (see for instance here, which was a revert done manually; here, where putting a mission statement back in was used to undo a series of further edits, most of which were fairly trivial; 1, 2, 3, 4). I've posted on the talk page to explain my changes, most haven't received answers. Posts on the user's talk page received no response. The user also began to post on other piano manufacturer pages (especially ones I'd contributed to), mostly to add scores of refimprove, fact, etc., tags, with no attempt at finding any of the information; and in some cases adding nosources tags to sourced sections. See 1, 2, 3, etc. Not sure how to proceed. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest requesting the involvement of impartial editors to discuss the edits and the article. The editor is using the talk page to discuss edits so continue there. If a consensus is achieved and the editor reverts against the consensus then it probably needs admin attention. --neon white talk 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try that. Thank you. Alexrexpvt (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2009 (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.

TruthIIPower

Stuck

 – Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Could someone with far more patience than I have a polite word with TruthIIPower over things like this?--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I desperately need someone to tell me why I should be nicer to POV-pushers who edit war. Please. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably avoid such comments and accusations. Accusations of improper behaviour without evidence is considered a personal attack. Stick to the discussion other than that small point i see no real issue here. --neon white talk 09:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a big deal per say, I just think TruthIIPower never got the crash course in wikipedia discourse... or perhaps he go the wrong one.--Tznkai (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, it is a she that we are dealing with. - Schrandit (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus is currently in dialogue with TruthIIPower (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite glad I avoided this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (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.

Problems on Runescape wikia

I may be in the wrong place for this but i could not find a single other plave i could go!

User Stinkowing is constantly harrassing me! He has taken attempts to have be banned and is being very rude on my user talk page. I asked an admin for help, and was ordered to stop deleteing stuff from the talk page or i would be banned. i deleted it because i found extreamly rude! the whole site seems very unfair to me! I would very much like some help with this! is there anything you can do? Aaroncampf (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Runescape Wiki is entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia. You might try either the {{helpme}} template on your talk page at Runescape Wiki or a comment at RS:Administrator requests or Forum:Yew Grove. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DougWeller & Policy on Deleting other Peoples Posts in Discussion Talk

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

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – this is at WP:ANI now

I'm having problems with DougWeller, preventing me from having civil discussions in articles about hate, Holocaust denial, extremism etc...

I know Holocaust Denial is a very sensitive, political and emotional subject, and I can understand this given I have lost several relatives in the Holocaust.

The issue at hand is this, I'm trying to post a very valid, specific, relevant and valuable link in the Leuchter Report to the actual research document Leuchter Report on the Internet. DougWeller, keeps deleting my addition of this reference in the article, saying you are not allowed to link to hate sites, Holocaust Denial sites and so forth, but I cant find anywhere in wikipedia where it says you can not reference link to specific Hate material in an article about that very hate material.

So I am trying to discuss this issue in the discussion area of Leuchter Report and DougWeller keeps deleting my posts, editing them and so forth, so other people can't review the links to see if they are relevant to the article Leuchter Report, he keeps deleting the actual external links to the research document produced by Fred Leuchter.

Now let me start by saying I hate Nazis, so I can understand this uncivil behavior, i make no personal attacks against DougWeller, my criticism is towards his behavior in preventing a neutral discussion on these very valid, specific, pertinent, valuable reference links to the Leuchter Report.

Is there an admins out there, who can put our shared hatred of Nazis aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point, and tell me what must be done to get policies and procedures out there to prevent people from deleting valid posts in the dicussion area? he keeps saying you are not allowed to link to hate sites on Wikipedia, or Wikipedia is not a directory of hate sites. He keeps throwing the Hitler and Hate card at me, all I am trying to do is put a specific, valid reference in the article.

What is the policy on other users deleting, editing or modifying other peoples discussion posts?

What is the policy on linking to hate sites, when the article is about that very specific hate material?

What constitutes not being a directory of links? How many links makes an article a directory? I see some articles with dozens of external links in them? What is the specific rules on this?

Again, I make no personal attacks against DougWeller, im criticizing his behavior. I know deep down DougWeller is a nice guy with a good heart, so Im asking for help in good faith.

Markacohen (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This makes the 4th forum where the issue of the links has been raised by this editor (recently blocked for edit warring and calling other editors neo-Nazis). Yes, I have objected to unnecessary links to hate sites (but Markacohen neglects to mention that I'm only one of four editors who have reverted his links), and an alternative link to the Leuchter report has been there since the 23rd, despite what is said above. And yes, I've edited the links he has been putting on talk pages so the raw url doesn't show, see [11] and note his continuing personal attacks on other editors. This issue has just been raised on the RSN board [12] and repeated here: [13] Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been raised about this editor at ANI (not by me) - see [14]. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (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.

TruthIIPower part 2

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

TruthIIPower is edit warring on the pages abortion, Religion and abortion and the Catholic League. She has made at least 1 personal attack and, in my opinion, seems to be something of a bigot as seen in this edit summary especially in this one. Could someone please have a conversation with her and try to redirect her to more productive ends? - Schrandit (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a bigot just because I favor neutrality is uncivil, and referring to me as female after I mentioned I was male is just silly. Maybe you need to look at your own behavior, not mine. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, please actually click on the alleged incivility and see for yourself that it is only alleged. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here is some very mild incivility in some edit summaries related to a content dispute. These are very sensitive issues and emotions tend to run rather high around these topics. That is why any substantive changes to such article need to be discussed on the talk page of the articles in question. If the two of you can't come to an agreement, you should ask for a third opinion or initiate a request for comment in order to get more input and form a consensus. TruthIIPower, you should probably drop the WP:SARCASM, it isn't very conducive to productive debate in a written format. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been active on the talk pages. In fact, the "strong" remarks were towards an anonymous user who has been making biased changes, leaving no edit comments and refusing to participate in discussion (or even answer messages on their talk page). TruthIIPower (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mr CatholicBot" is a personal attack. Several of TruthIIPower's edits are written in an angry/condescending tone that is not conducive to cooperative editing. This should be toned down. Also the flow on the talk page is also showing a pattern of refusal to accept consensus that is going to call for counteraction if continued. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already said, TruthIIPower, drop the sarcasm, and if you guys can't find consensus easily on the talk page, solicit outside input through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• TruthIIPower, I agree with you completely that the use of "mother" and "unborn child," in the context in which you have been deleting them, are POV and factually incorrect. I just think you hurt the case by edit warring - if people start to see you as a vandal, they won't listen with an open mind when you try to make your case. Wikipedia works by consensus, unfortunately that means that we don't always get our way, and that "truth" (whatever that means) doesn't always win out. I also think that you haven't done anything that earned being called a bigot, and I agree that calling you a girl if they know you're a guy is just silly - it's so junior high. To everyone - what can I do to help? I mostly edit Wikipedia just to revert vandalism, so I'm not sure what to do to help out in a content/NPOV dispute. I've tended to just disengage and stop watching pages where I disagree with too many of the edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (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: Roux

I have always, in the past, found User: Roux to be a fine, level-headed editor. However, (s)he seems to have got a bee in his/her bonnet about my perfectly standard piping of a category (s)he made. Things seem to have gotten out of hand between myself and him/her on his/her user talk page - I have tried (under duress) to remain calm and point out why I did what I did, and also pointed out the correct forum to discuss such issues - (s)he in response has made it clear (s)he regards this as "condescension" and "rank hypocrisy", and says that (s)he is willing to treat similar edits from me in the future as vandalism. I don't want this to become an edit war, nor do I want to get offside with someone who I regard as a good Wikipedian in every respect other than this one. I would be grateful if someone would look at this and try to at least talk some sense into him/her (or me, if needs be). Up until now I've always though Roux would be good admin material, but this has somewhat changed my opinion. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update - User: Roux has now begun to simply revert any edits I make on his/her talk page. At this point, I'm not going to have anything more to do with him/her than I have to - it's too much like hard work (I've already been away from Wikipedia once this year on medical grounds because it became too stressful - I don't want this to make me sick again). Some input from other editors would be worthwhile, though. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You were told to leave me alone. Do so.//roux   02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're finding wikipedia so stressful that it makes you sick then it's time to walk away. Your health is much more important than anything that happens here. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did - I came back only once my health improved, and now only get involved in generally non-contentious areas of editing. Unfortunately one area which seemed straightforward and non-contentious appears in this case to have got Roux's back up. I'm at a loss to see why, but thought it was worth bringing up here for the reason that Roux is a good enough editor that - as I implied - sooner or later s/he is going to be nominated for adminship. I wouldn't be happy to have that happen while s/he still fails to understand such fundamental and straightforward things as consensus and standard practice. Someone who reverts attempts at dialogue and suggests that further attempts at dialogue will be regarded as vandalism needs to change their attitude towards community discussion. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just to clarify, he already was nominated for adminship. Do you mean nominated again? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't know about that - I see from the number and quality of the oppose votes that I'm not the first to have run foul of Roux's lack of understanding of how to conduct a discussion. Indeed, some of the links on those comments (e.g., this one) look remarkably familiar. It seems (s)he has not learned. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to touch the details of the content dispute you two are having except to say it is a lot of arguing about a fairly minor point. The fact is you were both somewhat dismissive of each other. When two editors come into conflict, the right move is not to simply go around and around in a never-ending debate, you should seek consensus by asking for outside opinion, even if you "know" you are right. Roux, like any other user, has every right to delete messages from his/her own talk page. When it became clear Roux no longer wished to discuss the matter, you engaged in edit warring over the removal of your messages, and that is not acceptable. My suggestion is that you let this go for now, it's not worth making this big of a deal over it, and clearly Roux does not wish to discuss it at this time. If this matter persists, consider initiating a request for comment in order to find consensus as opposed to arguing and edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair comments - though with due respect, the comment "the right move [is to ask] for outside opinion" is a little bit strange, given that that is exactly why I brought it here. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grutness, you may have indeed had a valid point. However, at this point you were asked to leave User:Roux's talkpage. You did attempt to resolve the issue directly with the user. It failed. Further attempts to discuss with the user directly had been declared unwelcome, and you should never have reverted their changes to their own talkpage - that's a very aggressive act. The increased animosity in your discussions on roux's talkpage should have been a hint to cut and move the discussion elsewhere...in this specific case, either the talkpage of an article where the template was in use, or template talkpage itself in order to obtain new consensus. The request for you to use RFC had nothing to do with incivility, it had to do with "proper use of piping", as that cannot be dealt with in this forum. Overall, roux's incivility began and increased as you chose to continue what he considered an unwelcome debate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grutness may not want the trouble of initating an RfC on user:Roux, whom I personally find the most annoying of all WP editors I have run across. However, such an RfC might be a means of reining in user:Roux. The pattern of his passive-aggressive behavior in responding to reasonable comment from reasonable editors in tones of highly aggravated "injured innocence" and quickly escalating a dispute into operatic drama is something that I have experienced personally and seen user:Roux engage in with other editors as well. In my opinion, it is not conducive to a productive editing environment.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting that an RFC on Roux was in order, but on the content dispute that started this disagrement. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reversion was my mistake, done in the heat of the moment, and I regret it. However, I was under the impression that another editor's comments on a talk page should not simply be removed - even if those comments are on a user talk page.That was certainly what I was told when i first became a Wikipedian, and I haven't seen anything to refute that anywhere. Please also note that I twice tried to get Roux to move his/her comments objecting to the piping to the appropriate forum for such discussions - s/he did so on neither occasion. RfC is a complex process and one which I find does little as far as user behaviour is concerned. Given that it requires two people to have run foul of an editor - and at the time as far as I knew I was the only editor having trouble with User:Roux - it would not have been appropriate when I brought this here. Also, why does one editor finding a debate unwelcome mean it should be terminated? I found the debate unwelcome from the beginning - but felt that it needed to be had. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that user:Roux escalated the issue into hostility at a pace that is hard to fathom; however, if an editor is asked to refrain from further engagement on an editors talk page, then that request should be respected, little matter how aggrieved one may feel about it since stubbornly reverting an editors talk page is itself a breach of civility. Eusebeus (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Per Eusebeus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree as above, once an editor has told you they don't want to talk about it, nothing more positive can come out of trying to discuss it at that moment. Dayewalker (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the stub categories entirely, given the proliferation of article assessments. Any takers? --NE2 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest, Grutness, that if Wikipedia is causing you so much stress that your health is suffering, maybe you need to find a much less taxing hobby. Either that, or stop taking it so seriously. Nobody wants to see a productive editor leave the project, but it's simply not important enough to worry yourself sick over. —Travis^talk 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out, that's exactly what I did do (and it wasn't only Wikipedia that was causing me stress - there were other issues which I don't want to go into here). When I returned I reduced my editing from several thousand edits per month to a few hundred, and stuck predominantly to article edits rather than administrative tasks (see the reduction in Wikispace pages between December and now here). My edits are now almost all to what I regard as non-contentious issues. I was amazed that Roux would find this a contentious issue at all (it seemed pretty straight-forward and non-controversial as far as I was concerned), but apparently s/he did. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle disingenuous template at User talk:Lucian Sunday

At 17:01, 28 April 2009 I made this edit. Earlier that afternoon, I had initiated a discussion on Talk:Rakt. I made no further edits but contributed to the talk page. An RFC was initiated with one of the aims specified as To avoid getting further into reverting cycles. I contributed, again without editing the article further. User:Stifle was Canvassed by another editor. Despite the existence of the RFC, his first action was not to comment but to Revert. The reason for my subsequent Revert, while poorly presented, is perfectly understandable. I am a regular contributor to wikipedia and the above was my first edit in over 24 hours. I was 3RR Templated by User:Stifle who then made his second revert that day (who is edit warring?). Considering I both started the talk thread and have commented at the RFC, the 3RR is unnecessarly provocative. I believe (1) the comments between User:Dougweller and Stifle here and (2) Stifle ignored his own advice with This edit indicate the templating was disingenuous. It was calculated to insult or provoke and his actions are worthy of reproach. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a case where a decision has gone against you, and now you are trying everything you can think of in the hope of getting it reversed. This is disruptive. It won't work, and if you push it much farther, it will get you blocked. Time to drop it and move on to something more productive. (Note: I am totally uninvolved.) Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in question was an evident attempt (by TharkunColl (talk · contribs) to bypass an AfD close as Delete. The RfC was initiated by someone else who may not have known about the AfD. Stifle had been involved in the AfD and was the first editor's name I ran across who was active at the time I was posting - given the AfD it isn't surprising he reverted. Here's the diff where the complaining editor wrote "if you want to comment on editors set up a specific RFC where you can disappear up your own self important arse. " [15]. This was before the incident that Lucian Sunday is complaining about. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Quantpole initiated the RFC Here is his contribution to the AFD. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From evidence above this reports looks like a case of a WP:KETTLE violation. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to answer for here. If the consensus of users suggests otherwise, I will take further action. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucian: as a general rule, being templated is not a violation of WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL - it is indeed, a standardized warning that something is potentially up. As such, there is no violation of those two core policies.

Now, for the portions that are unrelated to this forum: First, you need also re-read WP:CANVASS - I ask a trusted editor (or two) for advice or a second set of eyes all the time, and that's not canvassing, however trying to sway an AfD or similar !vote by violating WP:CANVASS is bad. Therefore, asking advice was not bad.

Second, it does appear that a table was re-added to an article multiple times by one specific user - this qualifies as edit-warring. 'Round here, we go by WP:CONSENSUS, and the very key concept is be Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: you were bold, it was reverted, you DISCUSS it before adding it ever again.

If you have issues with what I've said above, or if I have misread the article histories, please correct me with diff's please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for BWilkins for your considered comments. My contribution history shows that I did not breach the maxim DISCUSS it before adding it ever again. The 3RR template remains unjustified & Stifles use of it remains worthy of reproach. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• If adding a neutrally-worded template to your talk page is insulting and deserving of reproach, surely this: [16] is worthy of much more. That is a egregious personal attack and blatant incivility. Again, you should consider WP:KETTLE before posting here in the future. As for your assertion that you never added back anything without discussing it first, this comment by you [17] directly contradicts that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blatant incivility on my part should tackled appropriately. My point remains unchanged. Stifle Templated an experienced editor with You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war both when this was not the case and before commencing an edit war himself. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)