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

Treats of bans and failure to AGF

We had discussions at the last Chapters meeting in Berlin regarding biting new comers. Wikipedia is complicated even for someone who has made tens of thousands of edits. While trying to address what I considered a legitimate question I received what I consider to be a less than friendly note [1] from User:J Greb. Now we are all here to try to write an encyclopedia. If ANI was not the proper place for me to pose my question I would be happy to be informed off a better place but rolling back my question and threatening to ban me from editing is NOT smart / good for the project. Now if we have admins routinely treating people like this (either old or new) we have a serious problem on our hands ( our falling editor numbers are a concern ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note - the "legitemate question" was over at ANI, and was this. GiantSnowman 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And I agree I posted with insufficient details and to the wrong venue. My point however is it would be nice if people where friendlier. A concern that has been raised before.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, in that note there was no talk of "bans" but there was talk of a "block" - quite a major difference. GiantSnowman 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree re wrong venue etc, but the response from JGreb seems completely over the top to me at first sight. Is there some underlying issue going on here? What's the context?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Never interacted with that editor before. Nor User:KFP. My comments have to do with a topic ban seen here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we haven't. And as suggested over on ANI, I'll take a Trout for snapping. Sorry about that Jmh649.

But the underlying issue was solid: starting a policy debate, or an ethics/POV debate, cold on ANI is a non-starter. Fighting to get it is going to be seen as disruptive and eventually blockable to preserve the "smooth" running of ANI. (We've got enough Wiki generated drama there just with the normal level of incidents posted.) If ArbComm wants the issue taken up at ANI regarding a specific case, then the background needs to go up and it needs to be clear what aspect of that case (incident) is being resolved.

- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. As an isolated bad move it would not support a ban, but systemic behavior of this sort would. I'm not sure that User:J Greb is being fair to himself with that trout slap. However, to assume good faith, you must have thought it would lead to a productive discussion. The other way of looking at it, of course, is as classic trolling, throwing out bait to see if you can start a unproductive row. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I guess WP:VP/P may be where this sort of discussion should take place. I am still unsure why what I posted was out of line. The discussion occurred before at ANI [3]. The difficulty was that most of the comments where by sockpuppets/currently banned users. Thus I was trying to clarify consensus as supposedly per here it is that abortion is not part of human sexuality [4].

I still think this is a legitimate question and assumed it would lead to productive discussion. But the more important issue IMO is why was the initial responses I received there so negative? Being labeled either a troll as per Fred above or accused of soap boxing is not assuming good faith. One would expect that people would provide constructive feedback on admin boards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does make sense in the context of User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#User:DMSBel; perhaps if you had included that context? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do agree that I phrased things poorly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mains electricity by country

• FrederikVds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mains electricity by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do we normally deal with other editors by ultimatum> [5] Do we normally have one author doing the final edit to an article? [6] Signed, Curious.--Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Such behavior is normal, but not optimal, this revert appears to accomplish little in terms of delivering information to readers. There are issues for international travelers, especially for North Americans. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I obviously meant the last revert about this specific issue, not the last edit ever. (Note that I didn't even use the words final edit.) It also wasn't an order or anything, just something I hope. I don't have any authority at all, so it can't even be perceived as an abuse of authority.

The problem: different countries have different standards regarding wall plugs. This article was written from a North-America centric point of view: it specifically stated that North America has "standardised", while the rest of the world differs widely. This is obviously not the case: different regions have different standards, and the North American standard is just one of them. I tried to correct it by taking away the reference to North America, and just leave it saying "vary widely across the world". Note that I don't have any issue with North America appearing on the page! If there was a balanced section about the different standards in different regions, I would more than welcome it. But the way it was now, just seems incorrect to me.

I clearly stated my reasons on the talk page. I specifically challenged a claim that he made earlier on that talk page, that he thinks "it's notable that I can draw a 3000 km radius around my home city and be highly confident that for any hotel I stay at within that radius, my appliances will fit the wall plug". I told him why I think it's not that notable (see the discussion there).

In response, only this ad hominem: "I think it's sweet that the Europeans can all agree on using the same currency and *still* can't agree on a wall plug." And a revert.

I restated the same argument. Now, a more or less to the point response, but containing factual inaccuracies (like "European[s] ... can't travel 1000 km without changing plugs"). That is the only proper response I ever received from him. After my reply, he ignored the main argument, instead picking one detail of something I said, and finding a minor flaw in it. And another ad hominem, bordering on name-calling.

After I restated my original argument, to which he still hadn't responded, yet again (why is 3000 km especially notable, more than 2000 or 4000 km, a large population, a lot of countries, ...), he just ignored my comment and reverted my edit. At that point I could have reverted him back immediately, but instead I gave him what he calls "an ultimatum": give an actual explanation for your edit, or I'll revert it. I obviously respect that he doesn't always have time for Wikipedia, but when there's a discussion going on about an edit on the talk page, he shouldn't just change the main article and let other editors wait multiple hours for an explanation for his edit. He should leave the article as it is, and only change it after he had time to explain his reasons.

He eventually responded by reverting the article yet again, and settling the matter by declaring "he has nothing new to say". When I still dared question his judgement, apparently he opened this alert, grossly misrepresenting my actions.

Link to full discussion after my last comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country&oldid=436271572#Standardization

--FrederikVds (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like the sort of dispute that could be avoided if we all remembered some key principles.
  • All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. If there's a reliable source that says that electric plugs in North America are standardised and that the rest of the world isn't, then that assertion can be considered for inclusion. Until then, it's original research or synthesis.
  • Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. Discussions about whether North Americans or Europeans did, could, should or might have the same plugs are not germane to the question of how best to write this specific article.

So I suggest that all parties assess their comments in the light of the five pillars and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I also agree with Sergeant Cribb, but I wish to note that Wtshymanski ends up at these pages far too often. If he's ending up here this often he is doing something wrong, other people are not really the problem, he is creating problems with his edit style. Looking at this, I find it hard to consider that FrederikVds is really making a bad edit, and Wtshymanski is being unwise to revert it, and even if he disagrees, doubly unwise to escalate to the point where it should be at wikiquette. Even if he disagrees it really isn't that important. -Rememberway (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Silvershrek

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

Today, Silvershrek made an edit with an insulting summary - 'what are you, deaf?', so I warned him with a level-3 warning, noting that he had deleted other warnings from his talk page already. He immediately shot back with an attack against other editors 'another admin with a Napoleon complex' and 'whines about it to an admin, like a baby', so I warned him again, and I investigated. This editor has been increasingly insulting in his edit summaries and interactions with others. 'Look you "knob"' 'wow, you're annoying' 'Cut it out! You crazy idgit!' - can't tell whether this is a joke. While many of this editor's contributions are constructive, he seems to be getting hot under the collar and running afoul of WP:CIVIL these days. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you notify him about your complaint? Obviously there is a problem, but I'd like to hear from him too. Maybe other people are doing stuff that bothers him a lot. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Lizzie McGuire fan, but actually [7] this edit doesn't make a lot of sense when the show is called Lizzie McGuire. Silvershrek seems to think that one brief note from him ought to settle the matter. If it doesn't the ip editor is "deaf", not listening. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

BurgererSF

• BurgererSF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeremias Falck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some days ago User:BurgererSF added some info to the lead section of Jeremias Falck. As per WP:LEAD this section should (only) give an overview of the main article, thus I moved the info to the main body and maid some minor changes[8]. Today BurgererSF returned and undid my changes with a short comment [9] ("rv edits by HerkusMonte - POVpushing, Kulturkampf propaganda see sources!!!" ). I changed it back and explained my reasons at his talk page [10]. He removed my message [11] (as he does regularly any kind of "opposition" e.g. [12][13]) and restored "his" version [14], summarizing his reasons as "Censorship and propaganda of the German Kulturkampf + vandalism, see sources, please discuss your changes". Furthermore he found it necessary to "warn" readers about the article [15] ("ATTENTION!!! SOURCES ON THIS TOPIC PUBLISHED BEFORE 1945, ESPECIALLY IN GERMAN, ARE NOT RELIABLE - LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE GERMAN KULTURKAMPF (GERMANIZATION OF THE POLISH POPULATION").

I don't want to editwar about a simple question of article structure, but BurgererSF's comments ("Kulturkampf propaganda, censorship, vandalism") and "warning" show a strange kind of bad faith and incivility, I think he should be warned to use a proper language and to consider WP:LEAD and WP:AGF. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any comments by BurgererSF directed against HerkusMonte. His concern regarding usage of German Empire's or Nazi Germany sources on Poland(and we have to remember that German Empire was formed by a man openly writing about exterminating Polish people, Nazi Germany is self explanatory) is understandable. It might be done of course without caps lock.I sincerely hope that Herkus Monte doesn't argue for inclusion of German Empire's sources or Nazi ones as reliable source of information regarding Poland.Or any Nazi Germany's sources used in that article or ones from the repressive German Empire?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT:Please don't take MyMoloboaccount's statement as an uninvolved view. We have a long history of more or less productive cooperation, coined by an "opposition in principle" in almost every question. However, I'm talking about BurgererSF "style" not about content (which, in fact, was just moved within the article). HerkusMonte (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's so curious for me, if Jeremias Falck signed his works as Polonus (Pole in Latin), why it cannot be diplayed in the article's lead section, my editions supported by reliable sources and quotes (eg. [16], [17]) had been reverted and "censored" (meaning in Latin removed), is it some kind of discrimination? BurgererSF (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with reliable sources used to source articles. Deleting such information isn't encouraged-although I am must say I am not surprised to see it happen, sadly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeremias Falck played no role in modern German-Polish cultural conflict. Bringing it into the article, and discussion about the article is anachronistic. He identified himself as a Pole from Gdansk, but worked in Hamburg. I would leave the way he styled himself in the introduction, but lose all the nasty talk about GERMAN KULTURKAMPF (GERMANIZATION OF THE POLISH POPULATION, nothing to do with Flack, and probably little to do with other Wikipedia editors; although we should guard against such prejudice toward Polish people and culture. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As this is the Wikiquette noticeboard, I didn't try to discuss content but behaviour (Wikiquette) and I'd like to stress (once more) that I only moved content from one place to the other. Is BurgererSF's way of "discussion" (he continues BTW, now calling it "rv discriminating editions" [18]) acceptable or not. Thank you.HerkusMonte (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fessenden oscillator

• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fessenden oscillator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is uncalled for. What is the issue with this user? [19] --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is your very long stream of non-constructive edits. In particular a blinkered view that you are some sort of expert on electrical technology, and that if you haven't heard of something, that makes it immediately non-notable.

To quote my post and save some linkage re your merge proposal, "Another crap suggestion by User:Wtshymanski to delete an article because he has never heard of it, and if he can't manage that, to merge it so that it goes away quietly." Now if this merge is so valuable, why did you yourself withdraw it only minutes later?, with a grudging admittance that the thing was indeed covered by sources, as we ask.

This isn't about Fessenden, it's about the totality of your edits and their profoundly unconstructive bias (there's a nice essay page link for that, if anyone remembers it). Go back to the infamous 2N3055 where you were bounced around WQA & ANI by a number of editors. You complain incessantly about articles, you do little to fix the issues (you do some copyedit & anti-vandal stuff for which I'm obviously grateful) but your continual erosion of articles and article content makes a toxic environment for anyone else to work on them.

Ages back, I wrote single-board microcontroller, an article that I thought did a fair job (albeit weak on refs) of explaining the origins of them and mostly how they're distinct from single-board computers. It sat there for ages without controversy, until you did a hatchet job on it. First of all you started querying the small points (again, if you've never heard of it, it didn't happen), such as denying the use of PL/M - it's a version of the big-iron language PL/1 for Microprocessors. Bit of a hint there. Now you've left it as a screwed-up mess that seems to be comparing single-board microcontrollers to microprocessor development boards, which just isn't the issue at all. It's a mess and we'd be better rid of it.

Last week there was an issue with Magneto where it was proposed to rename the primary topic to be a comic book character named after the device, probably because the Magneto article was so poor that no-one really read it. As had been noted on its talk: some years ago, it wanted rewriting entirely and to reflect the structure at Commons (which I did the legwork for, not you) to represent the three main areas that magnetos had been significant for. As it is, the article only discusses one of them (ignition magneto) and doesn't even mention that the other exist. So, because you were nowhere to be seen in fixing this, I started doing it. I from-scratched a new article on Magneto (electrical generator) (their obscure but notable use for high-power generation) so that we could start a clear one main + three subs structure and get a decent encyclopedia out of it all. What did you do? Minutes after I'd finished it, you tagged it for a merge back into the unreadable morass of the existing article. Now there's constructive. There's collegial for you.

There's a comment up this page, applied to the only editor who took your side on the transistor debacle, where their edits are described as you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value. Well to borrow a phrase, I saw that and thought of you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Burglar_alarm#Smoke.2C_heat.2C_CO you're doing it again. You see a section you don't like, so you repeatedly blank it because you've never heard of it, so it doesn't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. You must be under a lot of stress. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty well all of this is, to coin a phrase, un-called for. I can't understand the rationale for the Fessenden oscillator merger proposal, and have just given my reasons at the talk page in question. AD's comment was exasperated and W's comment was not calculated to reduce the stress levels. Cup of tea time all round. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits like [20] and [21] indicate that W is, as he puts it, "under a lot of stress". Probably he should just back off somewhat until he has calmed down William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I don't think there is any stress involved at all. I rather suspect that he enjoys himself. Wtshymanski is an interesting case. Like many other disruptive Wikipedia editors, he is pushing an agenda that is clearly against consensus (attempting to delete pretty much any engineering article he doesn't like) but that's the only way he resembles the average disruptive Wikipedia editor. Most disruptive Wikipedia editor are actually quite dimwitted, making it easy for admins to identify and block them. Wtshymanski. on the other hand, is highly intelligent and resourceful, and has become quite the expert on Wikipedia policies and procedures. He pushes the boundaries wherever he can, and backs down whenever there is a realistic chance of an admin dealing with the issue. Thus you see him being very sarcastic and insulting until someone makes an issue of it, then he plays nice until the attention passes. If he thinks no one is paying attention, he will push for a merge as a way of nuking an article without the attention am AfD generates, but when the out-of-policy merge proposals draw attention, he backs off and waits. One of his favorite tactics is button pushing - long-term low-grade annoyance in the apparent hope that his target will explode with an edit or comment -- which is exactly what Andy Dingley did. I am not going to suggest that "Another crap suggestion by User:Wtshymanski" is appropriate behavior, but it certainly is understandable. There are several editors who are experts on engineering topics and who work together in a mostly collegial atmosphere. Dealing with these editors is a pleasure, because even when one of my edits is shot down it is done using evidence and reason, leaving me feeling glad to have lost that particular battle and learned something. Dealing with Wtshymanski isn't like that. He creates a toxic environment because he is absolutely certain that the opinions of other editors are worthless. The result is that I find myself discouraged from trying to improve any article that is currently in his gunsights. It is not fun having to deal with his behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

EncyMind

Resolved

 – User blocked for making legal threats. —SW— ^verbalize 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• EncyMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anne Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently reverted the additions of a great number of unnecessary images from a few articles added by EncyMind, a relatively new contributor. This editor apparently took that to mean that there's some kind of "sexist control of Wikipedia", and that I was part of some group determined to suppress content in articles about female authors. Her talk page contributions have gotten more passive aggressive, as have her edit summaries. After I removed a completely superfluous quote box (not referenced or mentioned in the text) from Anne Rice today, she reverted it with the following summary - "suspected misogynist vandalism - cockblocker needed". This is completely unacceptable. I've warned her for that, but I'm afraid more eyes on this may be needed. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

She followed that up with "suspected illiterate misogynist vandalism; cockblocker needed" over a minor formatting change. I think we're into WP:OWN territory her as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid condescending attitude

• Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User repeatedly refers to me as "Little IP" whenever I ask for verification of his claims. The condescending attitude is not appreciated, but it is only to accumulation of multiple issues that forces me to believe that I am not being treated with good faith, forcing me to bring this here. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And this IP repeatedly harasses me because I'm trying to get sources up. As soon as I said "I'm getting sources" the IP pops up with "waiting", next to every place I'm trying to put sources in. The IP has also engaged in calling me "not smart" and other insults. It's quite a bit of back and forth. Additionally, this IP has editing and discussion behaviors very similar to other IP/users. Finally this IP was warned for edit warring on Generation of Youth for Christ.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Says the guy with this substantial block log... 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I admit I edit warred in the past. That is why I am not doing so now. I have gotten help as well in the form of mentors. There is no reason for you to try and report me, except maybe a personal wiki grudge or something. I could argue you haven't been treating me with good faith, but I can live with it. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK. the IP seems to be operated by Salegi (talk · contribs)=WikiManOne (talk · contribs)=BelloWello (talk · contribs). The forum shopping, concentration on conservative vs progressive issues in Seventh Day Adventism, the blanking of sections in Southern Adventist University and other articles, the references to a little known blog of a teenager, the breakneck editing patterns and the targeting of Fountainviewkid all point to that user. As an editor he is indistinguishable from BelloWello. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)