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:Eightball - personal attacks

Stale

 – left mesage on user talk asking user not to use term "lying" Gerardw (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Eightball has accused me outright here [1] and here [2] of lying with no foundation whatsoever. When asked to retract his accusation, he repeated it threefold, adding another accusation of misleading editors. I don't want to start a big argument on a discussion page with someone who doesn't understand what people are saying to him, and appears not to understand the subject either, but I will not accept charges of lying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the only post I will make here. There is a list in F1 that is the official entry of list of all teams and drivers. This guy is saying that that list is not solid information, despite the fact that it is the only primary source for such information. That is a flat out lie and serves only to mislead other editors. This isn't a personal attack, it's a fact, and I won't have someone telling me not to correct them. Eightball (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying something incorrect is prevarication (or more simply, "being wrong"). Lying is intentionally deceiving someone and use of the term strikes me as both unnecessary and uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Eightball started the thread in question debating a part of this "solid information", which is in fact a temporary and provisional list, updated regularly and which often features anomalous information, leading to long discussions exactly like the one he himself started today. A difference of opinion regarding this list has led to accusations of deliberate lying, which is not acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eightball, "lying" is an extremely provocative term, and you clearly use it in a different way than other people do, so you are strongly advised not to use it at all. Just use "wrong" instead. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Don't use the word "lying" unless you mean to accuse someone of deliberately relating what they know to be untrue. You can be incorrect without lying. --King Öomie 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas multiple accusations against other editors in AfD

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – additional third party input welcome Gerardw (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas (talk · contribs) has made several serious allegations against other editors in this AfD but is not prepared to ask for an investigation. There has been a lively discussion about the article but Viriditas appears to be turning this into a personal argument. Some advice on how to respond to such accusations from this well established editor would be welcome.

Examples of allegations made:

• Harrasment against User:RightCowLeftCoast
• Wikilawyering and Forum-shopping against User:RightCowLeftCoast and User:Ash
• Personal attack against User:Ash

—Ash (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My inclination is to sympathize with Viriditas here. You can't expect a person who has put a lot of work into an article that has already survived one deletion attempt to be happy when it is hit with a new one. Why not simply stop responding and let the AFD come to completion? Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that although Viriditas has acted at times that violates Wikiquette, I understand some of the frustration and reasoning that he maybe experiencing. That being said, he has been warned multiple times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and has been asked to be civil. I don't believe that my request for the user to be civil with those who may hold differing opinion regarding the notability of a subject is asking for to much. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm the statement "already survived one deletion attempt"; the above references are to the first AFD on this article, an early PROD was quickly deleted by Viridias without much in the way of general discussion.—Ash (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The diffs provided by the original complainant strike me as, at worst, mildly incivil and best overlooked. Certainly not to a level that I would support intervention. Gerardw (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible example of hounding. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N/N was linked to in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mun_Charn_Wong which Viriditas has been participating in; it's a reasonable good faith assumption he followed the link rather than hounding anyone. Gerardw (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good lord. If no one else wants to hone up to it, I'll take full responsibility and do a bound-to-be-a-mess non-admin close as delete since this is never going to end otherwise. As in, never. Ever! It's been derailed and just pushed all over the place. The difference between notability of a living person and a recently-deceased are essentially the same, and history has not drive the gears of time forward to advance the concept of notability. Success is not notability, scare mention in 2 books is not notability. Absolutely nothing else there is encyclopedic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wong was one of the first Chinese-Americans from Hawaii to fight in WWII at a time when discrimination was rampant. After the war, he became a recognized life insurance salesman and won a prestigious business award for his work. He also managed to perform important WWII research and contributed to military history, as well as creating a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. He is known for his contributions to the field of life insurance (he published on the subject and gave speeches around the world) and he is known for his WWII research and work with the university. You've only been on Wikipedia since the second week of October,[3] and you've never created an article during that time,[4] yet you have 1,421 edits, and from your very first edit you've been participating in project space,[5], devoting almost 27% of your edits to AfD debates, and 31% to user talk pages. Your article work is as low as 28%, so you will understand my concern that you might not be here for the right reasons. In fact, it seems that most of your work here only involves nominating articles for deletion, and your 28% work in mainspace might consist of nothing more than adding deletion tags to articles. That's very strange behavior for an account only created at 11:19, 16 October 2009, if you don't mind me saying so. I'm curious, what is Wikipedia policy on accounts solely designed to delete articles? Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording in edit summary constitutes a personal attack. I have placed a lvl 2 warning on the users talk page, as appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the "world's greatest life insurance salesman" with multiple unneeded tags, including a "notability" tag, indicates an abuse of the tagging process. Please do some actual research before placing tags on articles. Additionally, expansion requests should not be used on articles already tagged with stub templates like Ben Feldman, as a stub tag is an "explicit request for expansion". If you are unsure of how to use tags, use the talk page and ask questions. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, I guess as you are not listening, it is useless to point out that repeating criticism of RightCowLeftCoast here and in the AFD does not justify your offensive edit comment of "Suggest tagger do research for the first time in his life".—Ash (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue to support bad editing behavior, which is clearly used to justify the unwarranted deletion of notable articles. This is a pattern, and we can see it in the contribution history. RightCowLeftCoast shows up to add an "article issues tag", then he follows up with a "prod", and then finally, the article is brought to deletion. Feldman has dozens to hundreds of references in the literature, and the notability tag was added for no reason whatsoever other than to justify this tactical deletion strategy. It's bad editing, and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As the article was when I first read it, it received the tag appropriately. As appropriate, as the article is improved, the clean up templates are removed or replaced with more appropriate templates.

Regarding the Feldman article, I have added references denoting increase verification of notability to its talk page for use of other editors to improve the article.

I thank you for trying to show me the 'correct' way to edit wikipedia; however, the personal attacks are not necessary, and are not welcomed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, I did not support RightCowLeftCoast's tag of the article, I pointed out repeating criticism does not in any way justify your offensive edit comment. Let me repeat, you are not listening and attempts to side-track the AFD are now this WQA are tendentious and manipulative. You only seem to have two types of response, answering questions with questions or making accusations.—Ash (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The goal of WQA is to help users reach mutually agreed upon understandings of how to work better together. It requires good faith and a willingness to listen to uninvolved third-parties from all parties.

• Ash and RightCowLeftCoast, the first two accusations of Viriditas being uncivil were, at best, thin. Refusing to acknowledge that or withdraw your complaints isn't helpful. Continuing to look for dirt could be considered WP:HOUND.
• Viriditas, the last edit summary was over the line. Not commenting on the merits of the edit, just the phrasing of your edit summary.
• RightCowLeftCoast, posting the template on Viriditas's page isn't helpful (WP:DTTR) and if you ask for the community's help here you ought to let the process finish

I'm going to leave the section open to solicit help from additional third-party editors. (Some might disagree with me, and that's cool. It's part of the process.) You guys continuing a back and forth dialogue will not be helpful and most likely result in the alert going stale with no resolution. Not to discourage WP:CIVIL dialogue on the article talk pages; but if that's untenable I'd suggest wikibreaks, article WP:RFC or WP:THIRD, if you haven't tried those already. Best wishes. Gerardw (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

May I kindly ask how reporting continued actions of Viriditas directed towards myself is considered Hounding? I asked Viriditas at least once more to please be civil prior to using a lvl 2 template. It was not something that I did quickly or without hesitation.

I understand what you are saying regarding the back and forth, and distance between editors would definitely go a long way to deesculating the current situation. That being said, I have stopped directly working on Mun Charn Wong in hopes to avoid Viriditas. As soon as Viriditas began editing Ben Feldman (insurance salesman) I have stopped editing that article as well. I believe I have been relatively patient with Viriditas regarding his actions, and have asked multiple times for civility.

If you would like I can stop responding here as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree here. Describing my responses to Viriditas' accusations as "looking for dirt" is emotive wording and a misinterpretation of the facts. I added reliable sources to the Ben Feldman article, Viriditas followed our edits, not the reverse. You may find it helpful to note that WP:3O only applies when two editors are involved and WP:RFC could only apply once this WQA is closed.—Ash (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What strikes me as rather rude is Viriditas demanding that every Delete !vote explain themselves, or openly challenging their statement (again and again and again). Seems overly combative. I don't have a stake in the AfD myself, but it's off-putting to see. The community isn't a bunch of idiots and you, and the closing admins know what they're doing. --King Öomie 15:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gerardw that many of the accusations of impropriety have been very weakly founded. It seems to me that the first accusation was made by Ash here, to which Viriditas responded in like by accusing Ash of personal attacks here.

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that Viriditas mistakenly took Ash's comment; "I originally came to the article to provide a third opinion but I was aggressively rejected by Viriditas" as a personal attack, and said as much later on, which Ash took as a personal attack.

To me it seems that there was no real malice in either patry, at least to begin with, and looks like a honest misunderstanding has simply escalated;

Although I doubt that Ash's first comment was intended as a personal attack, Viriditas took it that way, and from there the entire matter has slowly sunk down. I recommend that you all just leave the issue behind you. You all seem to feel that you have been attacked, and you equally all seem to feel that you haven't made any personal attacks.

My Advice is:

Firstly, be careful when interacting with other users, especially when accusing them of impropriety.

And Secondly, remember to assume good faith as to intent; in a sensitive area like AfD, tempers can fray, it's important to remember that just because a user seems to make a harsh or cutting remark towards you, doesn't necessarily mean that their intent is to hurt. If you can, just ignore it.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine is making argument personal, no matter how I phrase it.

Resolved

Gerardw (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine has made changes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without consensus, then when I question Izzedine about Izzedine's reasons, User labels me as being rude and pejorative. User posted a warning to my page and deleted my warning on user's page. This is not the first time user has deleted warning off user's talk page, see difference at User talk:Izzedine 01:55, 2009 November 27. THough I know Users are permitted to delete comments off their user pages, it still gets in the way of tallying up a user's tendency for losing neutrality. a problem this user clearly suffers from. Please assist. THanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"User labels me as being rude and pejorative"— please provide a diff for this, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this looks very overblown to me. Your only complaint against Izzedine seems to be that they gave you a {{uw-joke}} template on your talk page? However, you also gave them a {{uw-npov}} template, why do you think its less acceptable for Izzedine to template you then it is for you to template them?
I agree that the {{uw-joke}} template is one that could be very annoying, especially if your edits are made in good faith, but then, the same goes for the {{uw-npov}}. When you are in a content dispute, the answer is to discuss your concerns with the other party/ies, not to post templates on each others talk pages. The "uw-" templates are generally reserved for vandalism, not for good-faith attempts at article building. Another thing that is generally reserved for vandalism is WP:AIV, Abie, it wasn't very constructive to report Izzedine there. The first step in dispute resolution is to bring up your concerns with the other editor/s concerned (user warnings don't count as bringing up your concerns).
My advice is this:
Izzedine; I suggest that in future disputes your first action is to politely bring up your concerns with the other editors, try not to use user warning templates.
Abie the Fish Peddler; pretty much the same, I know that it can be extremely aggravating to receive a user warning template that isn't deserved, as I have in the past received such warnings. I suggest that instead of retaliating by posting another warning on the other users talk page you instead gently discuss the issue with them.
To both of you: I suggest that you leave the matter of the warnings behind you, and (if you want to) proceed to resolve the issue on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a polite and civil way.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

and try very hard to assume good faith, which admittedly is hard when in the middle of a content discussion you feel strongly about. Consider article WP:RFC or WP:THIRD to get assistance in coming to consensus on the content. Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved. I asked for other editors to give their perspectives. So far one has. And I was able to understand that the photograph Izzedine wanted was the best choice. Though I still think Izzedine is very quick to take things personally. I wish in the future Izzedine will keep the suspicion of ulterior motives out of the discussion. I have also learned that if an editor reports that I have been vandalizing, that doesn't mean that I have been vandalizing and I don't need to freak out. Thanks for your help. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AzureFury -- Incivility

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – more neutral viewpoints welcome Gerardw (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AzureFury has become increasingly uncivil on the Iraq War talk page. His behavior has resulted in several disputes. An editor came to the talk page and stated their opinion that the article was not neutral.[6] They didn't list any specific reasons as to why they thought this, and this created a small dispute as to whether or not their POV claim was even legitimate. This dispute shortly led to the beginning of uncivil and bad faith comments by AzureFury: [7][8] The next part, long story short, was me letting them know that they were being uncivil -- and Azure claiming that doing so was a personal attack[9] although they were also confronted by another user about it as well.[10] I feel I civilly and clearly explained myself in an attempt to get them to understand that they were being unreasonable,[11], but their response was unnecessarily hostile.[12] Although I cited wp:civility to them, they ignored my argument and suggestions to read it, instead seemingly taking quotes out of wp:agf and wp:npa to defend their actions.

Not long after, another editor posted a new section on the talk page, raising a question between the usage of the words words "war" and "conflict".[13] AzureFury, despite the multiple clearly given warnings at the top of the page, responded by using the talk page as a forum for his view that the war is illegal.[14] Although I cited wp:TPNO to tell him that his comment was unacceptable for a talk page, and wp:TPO to let him know that it could be removed,[15] he refused to acknowledge his inappropriate comment, using the argument that wp:TPO didn't say anything about expressing opinions[16] (again, I had given him the direct link to the section that spells out inappropriate behavior on a talk page -- wp:TPNO). His refusal to heed the warnings directly led to another, long, drawn out dispute between AzureFury and User:Coldplay Expert, who was also asserting AzureFury's incivility. The argument between the two quickly became a personal political debate, although AzureFury explictly stated that since WP:BITE didn't apply to Coldplay Expert, they refuse to assume good faith and be welcoming (completely disregarding wp:civility).[17] The argument between the two continued until a third party had to step in and archive the entire section[18] and suggest dispute resolution. That section can be seen here. It seems clear that AzureFury, despite multiple warnings, is unfamiliar with wp:civility and talk page behavioral guidelines, and this has resulted in long disputes that disrupt the article and the talk page. I tried to deal with it myself, but they seem uninterested with familiarizing themselves with policy.--Abusing (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am assuming that per the instructions above you have notified all users of this post. I have responded to the talk page of the article in question in an effort to resolve the dispute. I would note that it seems to me several parties are implicated here, so I wonder why you would single out a specific editor. Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all old news. This supposed "dispute" has been over for a couple days now. Oh, and I haven't once made a personal comment about another editor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been over less than one day. And does this count as a personal comment? I think so... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I was referring to a policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except I know Coldplay Expert, having come across him many times on Wikipedia (and I shall restate that I entered that argument unbiased and found both of you at fault), and he is hardly a troll. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I was thinking of "troll" more as the discussion we were in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you were at fault. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please copy and paste my first comment that did not either attempt to discuss policy or discuss improving the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

An example would be Well, I also asked that you read the article so that you know what you're talking about. Additionally, calling another user a troll is uncivil; claiming you were referring to the policy doesn't make it less so. In my opinion both AzureFury and ColdplayExpert are crossing the boundary of civil behavior and Thejadfalcon's suggestion of taking a break is a good one. . Gerardw (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A, that is only part of my comment. B, that is me describing my own actions. Not sure how that's against policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My above statement contains links to several uncivil statements. This does not necessarily mean personal attacks. Coldplay Expert might have also acted uncivilly in the dispute that erupted, but the dispute was a result of AzureFury's failure to stop behaving that way when I first tried to tell him to stop. The problem is AzureFury's ongoing incivility on the talk page that has created several disputes, not just the one most recent dispute that has already been resolved.--Abusing (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol! One of your supposed "incivil" statements made by me is the word, "you" followed by a quote from another editor. You caught me! I am guilty of copy and pasting comments by other editors. The only other supposedly "hostile" statement is when I said Coldplay was tagging the article because it contradicted his sense of patriotism. And given that he has yet to find any POV issues besides the two that were addressed, I believe that is an accurate assumption, especially considering his comments about "bad guys." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to be a civil as humanly possible with this guy trying to provoke me. Oh and I just fond out about this a few minutes ago. It seems that no one told me about this.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What a victim.[19][20][21][22][23][24] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

what a saint.[25][26][27][28]--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a Talkback on your talk page when I made this comment. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OH sorry I guess that I missed it. Anyway back to the point. All of my "attacks" were purely defensive as AzureFury was insulting me IMO by saying that I get all of my POV concerns from FOX ect. THis had nothing to do with the article and trying to imporve it (which is why I came to the talk page in the first place). Also, I think that we both broke the 3RR as I added the POV template and he revoved it. And I added it again and he removed it agian and I added it agian...ect ect. I eventually gave up and someone elso added it to actuall sections where I posted some comments that proved my POV argument and well..it was reverted again. After that I took it to the talk page and the rest was history.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where to start. First off, I never said that you got all your POV concerns from Fox news. You equated socialist views with anti-Bush statements, which is something I assumed only an avid viewer of Fox might do. Now let's get into your comments. What exactly did my year old block have to do with the article? What purpose was served in going through my history?[29] Tell me, how does calling me a jerk improve the article or approach consensus?[30] How does calling me a dick improve the article?[31] How are any of these comments "defensive"? Oh, and as for the supposed 3RR violation, this is trivially solved by looking into the page's history like so. I have exactly 1 "pure revert" with the other two deletions of your tag accompanied by edits to resolve the issues that you brought up. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputes are usually not a serious thing when they occur on the talk page. I didn't include any incivility from the heated personal dispute that occurred in my initial post. I don't think it needs to be included in this discussion. However, someone's behavior is leading to multiple disputes that are actually disrupting a talk page, and they don't seem interested in correcting it. That's why I posted this WQA. The persistent pattern of rudeness and hostility and a complete disregard for wp:civility is the problem. I really don't even know where it came from.--Abusing (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting quote from WP:CIVILITY: "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." What exactly was your reason for starting this discussion after the debate in question had ended? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you completely missed the multiple incidents of me requesting that you act civilly. Apparently you missed the multiple disputes you have gotten into. Apparently you missed the two paragraphs, complete with multiple diff tags for easy reference at the top of this discussion. And now, you actually accuse me of simply using the policy to attack you for some reason? Do you actually understand policy? It seems not. You defend arguments for your incivility by citing WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, a completely different policy. You defended your incivility by saying the content dispute is over. You apparently did not even familiarize yourself with what a WQA discussion is. You called someone a troll, and defended yourself by saying that you're referencing policy. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls is not policy. Calling someone a troll is not justified by any policy. Quite the opposite. You made a statement on the talk page saying Bush is a war criminal. I told you that that comment was inappropriate and could be removed. You responded by saying "There is nothing in WP:TPO that says, "editors can't express opinions." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)". In fact, it's WP:TPNO (which I also linked to) says that, but it's in the same guideline article. There are so many warnings at the top of the talk page, it should be common sense not to express your opinion on that page. That is why I started this discussion, you seemingly fail to understand behavioral policies, you're seemingly under the impression that I'm only trying to harass you for some reason, and I hoped some other editors other than myself might be able to tell you the same, and you might listen to them.--Abusing (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this dispute myself, so I can't comment specifically on this incident. But I will say that I have had previous unpleasant editing experience with AzureFury. I would concur with the comments about general high level of hostility, disrespectful discourse and overall talkpage disruption engendered by his/her edits. I summarize some of my concerns in this edit. I actually unwatchlisted the page concerned due in the main to AF's activities there. Based on my experience, I would certainly urge AF to consider the tone and tenor of his/her talkpage contributions and whether they really productive or in the spirit of a collaborative project. --Slp1 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• ColdplayExpert, AzureFury's behavior does not give you license to lose civility yourself, as your statement regarding your attacks being defensive seems to imply.
• AzureFury, a review of your edits strikes me as consistently unnecessarily confrontational and often sarcastic, showing an overall pattern of lack of civility.
• This is a non-binding mediation forum with no powers of enforcement so it only works if the involved parties wish to come an agreement; as of yet I'm not seeing indication that will happen here. I'll tag in progress to see if we can get more perspectives. Gerardw (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pointless as there is no longer any content dispute. I don't see why the discussion was started in the first place. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here is not about content, but about your communication and behaviour, (and those of other editors, apparently). With luck, you (and the others) will get some useful feedback from independent editors about how to improve your editing. That's the point.--Slp1 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Copy and paste my first sentence that was out of line. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll just point out that this response is a perfect example of what is often so disruptive about your editing. You demand other people do work for you, and then don't seem to register the information when they respond. In this case, multiple people have listed comments of concern that you have made. Nonetheless you made exactly this same demand to "copy and paste my first sentence...") above,[32] and Gerardw was kind enough to answer you.[33]. Did you miss his response? Didn't you already have enough examples of concerns in any case? Part of civility is carefully reading and respecting the contributions of other editors. Doing some checking and critical thinking yourself will move discussions forward much productivelyand civilly.--Slp1 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I see is editors ignoring the personal attacks directed against me whilst saying that quoting other editors is unreasonable "hostility." I read every comment and looked at every dif. None of this has convinced me that my actions were unreasonable. Btw, Gerardw did not provide any quotes, only said that my comments were "unnecessarily confrontational," which is debatable. If you're unwilling to put in the effort necessary to copy and paste comments from the dispute in question, feel free to excuse yourself from this discussion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange that you would say this, given that the diff I gave you does contain a direct quote from you. Here it is again [34] so you can check. Unfortunately, your post above just proves my point about your failure to read and consider the posts of others, and the overall hostility of your edits. I actually see plenty of attention to the edits of others, and recognition by Coldplay, below, that his edits were inappropriate. What about you? Is it possible that you might have something to learn from comments of multiple editors that your communication could bear some improvement? --Slp1 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided a quote here [35]. Gerardw (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright AzureFury, I'm just going to briefly run through some places where I think you behaved inappropriately, and then offer some thoughts and advice, if thats alright with you. These are not necessarily the only breachs of WP:CIVIL.
You should remember that: "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;" is considered a breach of WP:CIVIL. By commenting "Eh, I've fed this troll enough. I'll stop", you provoked cold play by this comment, although the fact that cold play was provoked doesn't excuse his following comments, nor do his following comments excuse your taunt.
Secondly, your repeated assertions that Cold Play hadn't read the article were not particularly helpful in resolving the matter. Although I don't know whether or not cold play did or did not read the article, it was slightly pushing it to keep on asserting as such, regardless or whether he had or not.
Thirdly, your comments at Cold Play regarding his motives for bring up the issue where uncalled for, suggesting that he might only be concerned due to a feeling of patriotism, or that he might be motivated by political opinions, are both borderline WP:CIVIL concerns.
However, AzureFury, although there are points when you certainly could have behaved far better, I feel that overall, your conduct was keeping in-line with WP:CIVIL, save for a few specific comments. I think you should however be extremely careful about how you treat other editors in content disputes. Your aim should be to resolve the dispute, not inflame it, every comment you make, it may be worth sitting back and thinking "is this really going to help resolve the matter?" if not, then change the comment. Never lose sight of the goal of these disputes, which is to improve the article. People can get caught up in disputes and try to continue them for their own sake, be careful that you do not. Your taunting of Cold Play is also something worth thinking on, as is your general attitude when conducting these conflicts, remember that the other editor is most likely a good faith editor who genuinely believes that their suggestions will improve the article, please deal with them with a more polite disposition in future. Again, your overall your conduct hasn't been quite so bad as has been made out, however, you can still learn from it and improve. Thanks for your patience in reading this.
Cold Play, although it seems to have been played down here, your conduct wasn't exactly exemplary, and you can definitely improve upon it. AzureFury has been extremely patience and tolerant of your behaviour. Such comments as: "Well congrats you got your wish jerk" and "Your actions at this talk page alone proves that you can be a WP:DICK. Its plain and simple" aren't constructive, they are not polite and they most certainly don't help to resolve the dispute. I understand that you are fairly new to content disputes, however, you should be thankful to AzureFury for being so tolerant of your comments. Yes, you were definitely provoked, I've seen you around on wikipedia, and you've always struck me as a very happy and jovial editor, however it seems to me that when you were provoked you lost that cheerful manner. What I think you need to improve upon is your response when you believe yourself to have been provoked; do you respond with all guns blazing? Or do you play it cool and ignore the provocation, instead focusing on the matter at hand; the content dispute. Ignoring taunts is the best way to get around them, yes being taunted is provoking, however, you need to try and maintain a cool head at all times, and ensure that your comments are all in keeping with policy. I hope that you too can learn from this matter. Remember, you can chose to either learn from mistakes, or to make the same mistakes again, in this case, I trust you will endeavour to learn.
Thanks you to both of you for taking the time to listen. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion and advice, and it may not reflect what anyone else thinks, in short, ignore it if you want.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was about my assessment of the situation. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There is no dount that what I said was also a Bad faith comment. However what really got me going was calling me a troll. Everyone here who knows me will know that I am anything but a troll. Yes I guess I act linke a cheerfull editor. It takes alot for me to lose it hetre (After all this is an all vouluntary project) but his comments were way out of line and I lost it. Yes you were right I should have been the bigger person and ignored his comments and moved on the the next editor that could have helped. However me admiting my mistakes does not forgive AzureFury from his comments. You hurt my feelings. Im not a "troll" or some crazy right-winger. I only thought that the article had this gerneral feeling of POV. I should have listed specific points before this broke out into a fight.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

PS I have read the article but I never got to post anything as we started to drift off topic and into purely party lines. (Politics...ugh I hate it)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 12:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nothing good will come out of this. Why do we even bother :(--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that? In my opinion something good can come out of this, so long as the involved parties (including yourself) are willing to learn from this. Yes, you made mistakes and behaved badly, as did others, but if you listen carefully to the constructive criticism then you can learn and improve in future. If you do so, then that is, in my opinion, a very positive outcome. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I am listening and learning from this. But AzureFury does not seem to get the point. He refuses to acept that he contributed tot he problem. Thats what I meant.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Azure, have you gathered anything from anyone else's comments about yourself yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusing (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've learned that I was extremely patient and did not breach civility. :) AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Costas did not start his career as a porno narrator

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Gerardw (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi-

There are many things wrong with the Bob Costas wiki page. Under Occupation it says something inappropriate. And in the explanation of how his career began it says something else inappropriate.

please fix the problem and monitor it so it doesn't continue to be an issue.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.12.190 (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have come to the wrong place. SeeBiography of living persons. Please see WP:5P if you want to edit it yourself and then just go ahead and do it. I just had a look and it seems that was some vandal and has been corrected. Dmcq (talk) 07:32, 7 December 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.

I'm being continually being accused of being a sock puppet by one editor and would request that to be stopped

User Makrand Joshi [36]is personally attacking and harrassing me by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [37] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [38]

Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [39] He changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [40]

He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [41], here [42], here [43].

I had reported the user for edit warring here, [44] for which he responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and how pathetic and malicious I was.

I request you to tell him to not harass me using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 11:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Makrandjoshi, please use the Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case form for submitting evidence rather than posting accusations on talk pages. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, the result of the edit war report was that you failed to follow procedure and you are arguably the more disruptive at that article. In my mind, this calls into question your own civility. Did you offer an apology to Makrandjoshi after that? Gerardw (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is my response.

• I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment. I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own. Gererdw, I had initiated a formal SPI some months ago which returned the result "possible" with admins and others agreeing that there is a lot of similarity, but since the sockmaster had been inactive for a long time, there was no direct IP-based evidence yet. I see another sockpuppet returning User:Suraj845, and yesterday I raised concerns about it to User:Tiptoety an admin who had run check-user detected and blocked sockpuppets last year. And User:Tiptoety has said she'll keep an eye on it.
• I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to. FWIW, wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin.
• I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious. wifione has been forum-shopping against me on a continuous basis. And every time, the result goes in my favor. Even in the link above, when wifione talks about reporting me for edit-warring, he/she neglects to mention that the result of it - what I was doing was fine, and he/she is actually the more disruptive user. In the past, wifione raised the same point in 3 different noticeboards at the same time - really prodigious forum-shopping. And this forum shopping continues. Always targetted against me.
• How is the phrase "pissed off" uncivil?
• wifione's editing record speaks for itself. The user is continuously trying to whitewash The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, trying to get any negative or critical information removed. His/her edits, which some other editors and I have painstakingly gone through and reworded, always exaggerate some things and praise IIPM in words that the cited source never mentioned. wifione's agenda, IMHO, is to turn the article into an advertorial for IIPM and remove all negative information.
• wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets. Pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets who have in the past threatened me with a lawsuit, a beating, attack and murder. So if I suspect someone of being a sock-puppet, I am going to call them on it. And not just call them sockpuppet, but also point out evidence for it. I have raised an SPI in the past, have followed up with the admin involved in that SPI yesterday. And if the sockpuppetry gets really disruptive, I will of course renew the SPI. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

I have asked Gavin.Collins on numerous occasions to refrain from personalising his posts, yet he cannot seem to refrain from doing so. Please can someone neutral review this post, [45]. Given that I wrote Wikipedia:Independent sources almost 3 and a half years ago, I find a statement like "I am glad that Hiding has now acknowledged that independent sourcing is a necessary..." to be unnecessary and patently false. I am tired of constantly having to defend myself from these sorts of attacks. Wikipedia is not supposed to descend to this level of discourse. Hiding T 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty mild, and certainly seems on a par with And anyone who doesn't understand policy just needs it explained to them. If they still don't understand it, simply continue to explain it. Just like I do with you. which Hiding posted here [46]. So at this point I'd suggest both editors try to focus on the content and not make these kinds of references to each other. Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

offensive language by kwamigwami on Burushaski talk page

The person using the pseudonym kwamigwami has called me a "crackpot" and "nationalist" in the talk page of the Burushaski article. I believe people like this individual should not be allowed to have a higher editorial role and I demand an apology. SignedIlijacasule (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ilijacasule

I copy the evidence:(quote kwami)

He *is* a crackpot. Fringe theories may get some mention, but they don't deserve half the biblio. Most linguists think Dene-Caucasian is nonsense, but there are at least a number of linguists working on it. No-one follows Chashule, despite the fact that it would be major news if he were correct, and would be picked up by newspapers and general science journals. The only reason he deserves any mention at all is that he somehow got himself published in a reputable journal. Pick the most representative of his pubs, and stick with that. kwami (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

and further:

Casule's also made bizarre comments about Paleo-Balkans that appear to be motivated by nationalism rather than science, so his credibility isn't very high. kwami (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilijacasule (talk • contribs)

You must notify kwamikagami (talk · contribs) of this report if you want any response. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)