Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active discussions

Request for guidance about personal attacks

An editor at the cold fusion talk page has been making personal attacks [1]. I pointed out the relevant Wikipedia policy, but he told me to "stop whining" [2]. Is this a pattern of behavior which deserves correction? Keep in mind that there have been at least two Arbcom cases about cold fusion and that Arbcom declared that the cold fusion page is subject to discretionary sanctions [3] [4]. Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing an actionable personal attack here. Just my opinion, mind you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding any form of personal attack ... could you point it out a little more clearly for me? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He is aware of uncivil behavior: [5]

Battlefield mentality: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Bad Faith assertions: [10]

Accusing others of acting in bad faith: [11]

Accusing someone of babbling: [12]

IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All and all, it's arguably overly strident but not personal attacks.Nobody Ent 10:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rtrammel

• Rtrammel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeraphine Gryphon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This happens:

• I remove a section from the article Self-concept, explaining that it's not related to the subject of the article; I also leave this message to the user who (re)added it, Rtrammel.
• Rtrammel proceeds to insult me and then make several edits with the summary "Jeraphine Gryphon foced me to delete my research".

He also sent me an insulting e-mail, to which I responded the way he deserved; the actual problem here is that he's removing referenced and relevant content from articles only because of this issue.

There's nothing I can do to cool him off and I refuse to message him; in his last e-mail he threatened to report me to "Wiki" and to "authorities" (and I told him to *** ****, so, there's no resolution between us).

(I just checked my e-mail, he's calling me a terrorist because he feels terror, and has reported me to US police. Or something. Point: removal of content, I hope someone else besides me can take care of that.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a legal threat to me and should probably be taken to WP:AN/I for an indef block. Yworo (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The legal threats were given via e-mail, so I think they're outside of what Wikipedia should care about. (Right?) I know I definitely broke the civility policy in my e-mails, is that an issue? It was definitely after he started blanking things, so I don't think that's my fault. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I dropped an edit warring template on his page in case he is unaware of edit warring (which he seemed close to doing w.r.t removal of content). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

His reasons are obviously bollocks, but should I be worried if he does "hint" to someone that I might be a "terrorist"? (I don't even live in the US but I do live in the EU.) Because if there's any reason for me to be concerned (about being annoyed by authorities) then I think WP:HARASS applies. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I notified R of the discussion here, he removed the notice. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are the emails via the email the user Wikipedia system, or are you emailing directly? If there's any possible hint the threats might be physical I'd follow the advice at Wikipedia:Threats of violence. As far as wikipedia is concerned I've they've stated they're retired; I've edited out the parting personal attack. As long as they don't edit or email you anymore there's probably nothing that needs to be done as far as Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

He used Wikipedia's system more than once, but obviously we both know each other's addresses by now. And no no, no threats of violence, just more than one threat of reporting me to various authorities. For "cyberbullying" (I only replied to his insults, I never asked him to e-mail me to begin with), which according to him is a form of terrorism (because he feels terror) and a federal offense. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

He used past tense, meaning he's already reported me or he's lying to scare me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. If there's nothing outside of WP to this dispute, there's about as much chance of anything coming from this as I have of turning ten years old tomorrow. (And since I'm picking up a case of wine tonight, I really hope I'm not turning ten!) Ravensfire (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg

I feel that Jayjg is behaving in an in appropriate manner towards me. The following are two examples in the past few hours:

• Jayjg appears to have followed me here. He never edited the page before, and I'm not sure how else he could've gotten to it. And his first ever edit on the page was to revert me. (This behavior got me a block a few years ago).
• Jayjg seems to be bringing a dispute from one article into another, when they are not related at all (except that he and I are the ones in dispute).[13][14] That is really unhelpful and muddies any dispute resolution attempts.
  • In fact he seems to be confusing me to the point I can't understand his position (does he support or not support the National review as a reliable source: his comments are conflicting).

I know these are two recent examples, but Jayjg has done similar things before. From deleting my comments on his talk page (within minutes of me writing them, to make it seem he's ignoring me) to trying to get me to "admit" stuff. All this happened years ago, and I fear that it may happen again.

All I ask is that Jayjg communicate clearly, and that he not mix up issues (or otherwise create confusion), and that he behave in a manner conducive to dispute resolution.Bless sins (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a personal attack in the diffs you provided, overlap at a single page isn't sufficient to abandon WP:AGF and accuse an editor of Wikihounding. The talk page discussion you reference was from 2007 which is too long ago to be convincing evidence of anything today. Nobody Ent 03:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All I want is clearer communication.Bless sins (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it safe to say Bless/Vice just outed himself as a sock? Or am I missing something? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I accidentally used the account of Vice regent while he was still logged on (not realizing that). I'm related to him and we sometimes share the same computer.Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. :x — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not, and they instantly reverted the edit; the accusation shows a lack of good faith. Nobody Ent 10:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly the instant revert and then saying something completely different from the right account, that made it suspicious, plus they both edit (controversial) articles on Islam. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bless sins: both users have been blocked, one indefinitely. There was no basis for this report, and it should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As Emily Litella would say: "Oh, that's very different. Never mind!" (I was misled by the ineptness of the sockpuppetry) Nobody Ent 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI consensus [15] was that situation more likely two users sharing computer than socking.Nobody Ent 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FPGT24 making false accusations of vandalism, failing to assume good faith, page ownership

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – user indef'd for legal threat Nobody Ent 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Ford Explorer article introduction, I edited out the statement that the Ford Explorer is a crossover SUV, because of my understanding that it was built on a light truck platform, not realizing the 2011 model year was built on a different platform from previous years that may qualify it as a crossover. A simple mistake, but still a good faith edit, and therefore not vandalism.

User FPGT24 reverted my edit, which is fine, but his edit summary stated:

"Reverting vandalism by Mmyers1976. the 2011+ Explorer is a indeed a Crossover SUV built on the Taurus platform, as confirmed by Ford.)"

I left a message on FPGT24's talk page, directing him to WP:AGF, and also to WP:Vandalism so he would better understand what is and is not vandalism. He replied on my talk page with the following:

Removing true, verified information from an article is indeed classified as "vandalism". The 2011+ Ford Explorer is a full size Crossover SUV which Ford clearly stated before the release of the vehicle. Removing true information (in this case, the Explorer being a Crossover SUV) and placing false information in place of it (in this case, you said the 2011+ is built on a light truck platform and not on the Taurus platform) is considered vandalism, and defacing the article. Please don't edit articles on subjects that you don't have much knowledge on. Car enthsuiasts like myself put alot of time and effort into providing information to wikipedia that your average person may not know about a vehicle. With that being said, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPGT24 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So he still is failing to assume good faith, and now he violates WP:OWN with his comment telling me not to edit articles I "don't have much knowledge on" because "car enthusiasts like [him] put a lot of time and effore into them". Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

(moved for clarity, comment addressed to FPGT24) Wikipedia articles are available for everyone to edit, the user made an honest and good faith mistake, this is not vandalism. I would also suggest you keep your opinions on who can edit which articles to yourself; anyone is allowed to edit any article, not just those with specialist knowledge. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: FPGT24 attempted to delete this thread and flagged it as a minor edit: [16] IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" was the wrong choice of words. User Mmyers1976 refused to contact me in a personal manner to resolve this issue. In the 3 years I have been on Wikipedia, I have never had trouble with anyone. A big deal is being made out of a small issue that could have been resolved on my talk page. I never said or acted as if i owned an article. Good faith or not, no one should be removing VERIFIED information from an article, to place untrue, unverified information in its spot. FPGT24 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)FPGT24

Indeed... mountain > mole hill. One of you uses "vandalism" too liberally, the other sees the need to come here and complain to easily. I suggest you each trout yourself and move on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you much. FPGT24 (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)FPGT24

FPGT24 is lying when he claims that I refused to contact him:[17] I did try to resolve this on his talk page, he deleted the comment I left and continued to call my edit vandalism (perhaps Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 would like to amend his comment in light of this information), and is now claiming I refused to contact him and didn't try to resolve it on his talk page, an outright lie. He seems to be escalating his uncivil behavior, including trying to delete this thread from WQA while marking his deletion as a minor edit, as IRWolfie pointed out. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, FPGT24's claim that the information I removed was "VERIFIED" is another falsehood on his part. The assertion that the Explorer is a crossover SUV never had an inline citation attached to it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User Mmyers1976 is obviously looking to pick fights. I was minding my own business reverting an article back to true information and I get harassed for it. I used the word "vandalism" lightly, and incorrectly in this case. We all know this and I admitted to that. Mmyers1976 is refusing to cooperate saying I must admit that I used the word "vandalism" incorrectly when I already admitted it a few times. Yes, I did remove what you said from my talk page because you were ranting at me and I do not want that on my talk page. You tried to resolve nothing. This is nothing but harassment. Keep in mind Mmyers1976, you are 35 years old, and you are arguing with a teenager over a BS sentence that I pulled from an article because it wasn't true. LET. IT. GO. If this continues i WILL contact police and we will see how you enjoy getting slapped with a cyber harassment charge of a minor. I'm telling you to leave me alone and I meant it. I've never experienced an adult flip out and go bonkers over being corrected. FPGT24 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)FPGT24

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat based on threat above. Nobody Ent 18:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhislutva

Resolved

 – Per Beeblebrox, and closure agreed by Yworo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bodhislutva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Bodhislutva (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• Richard Webster (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Personal attacks against two editors (myself and Polisher of Cobwebs), including accusations of "obvious personal vendetta", "someone trying to push a one-sided view of anti-free speech", "exposes your 'concern' as a deliberate deflection if not out-right bullying", "I note your glaring hypocrisy", "stunning hypocrisy", "brazen arrogance", "a massive sense of religious entitlement driving your attack on my choice of personal expression", etc. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(By the way,) reported here: Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#User-reported. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And long discussion resulting can be found here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Bodhislutva. Yworo (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to add: I wasn't aware of the discussion when reporting. :x — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I should have mentioned them both, though the personal attacks are most severe on the user's talk page. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The user has been provoked and annoyed, I'd suggest just dealing with the issue (at the username RfC) and ignoring the subjective things she says. Yworo should try to refrain from provoking her further. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Jeraphine. I took her off my watchlist just before filing this report. She's quite capable of digging herself into a deeper hole all by her lonesome, and I see she has now started to do so. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yworo badgered me (on my talk page and the discussing over my username) multiple times to report what I consider to be his personal attacks on me (now below). Note I refrained from doing so until after he escalated it here. Also please note I never posted any comments on his talk page and the only comment of mine on Polisher of Cobwebs' is related to an edit dispute (namely PoC blanket deleting my revision twice, a fact you can verify). Otherwise I have tried to defend my username, which I believe I have a right to do. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs

1. Twice deleted all revision by blanket reversal on the Richard Webster page, the second time in spite of my attempt to address the issue on the editor's talk page.

2. Then three months after becoming aware of my username, Polisher of Cobwebs sudddenly began a campaign to make me change my username, including the opening post on my talk page which contains the personal attack:

"I have to assume that you know this perfectly well, and have chosen a username that is deliberately offensive and malicious." -- Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No evidence of my intention is presented. I later explain that my actual intent was playful personal expression, no apology for the extreme accusation is forthcoming. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yworo

Yworo has been pursuing me constantly on my personal talk page for the past day. Acting in concert with Polisher of Cobwebs, he filed a complaint against my username. I have been subjected to various personal insults from Yworo, including:

"the offended feminist routine is getting a bit boring as a (non)-defense" -- Yworo (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please note I had made no comments claiming to be a feminist.

"I think you may be Tap Dancing on the Titanic." -- Yworo (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

• Made AFTER I expressed my opinion to another user that I considered "tap dancing" as a descriptor of arguments to be a form of insult.

"yup, it's all a big conspiracy against you, courtesy of The Cabal." -- Yworo (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I never claimed any conspiracy. I merely noted that the coordinated nature of the messages, complaints and edits on my talk page and Richard Webster indicated a concerted effort by Yworo and Polisher of Cobwebs against me. The timing of their posts validates my concern.

Yworo later began a string of escalating personal attacks involving my personal religious beliefs:

"A Buddhist would feel compassion for those it offended, realize that the fact that it offended or raised negative passions in others clearly indicates that it is not a form of "right speech", and would voluntarily change it for the sake of all sentient beings. If you actually know anything about Buddhism, you would have to admit that this is how a Bodhisattva would view the situation." -- Yworo (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• So basically if I fail to capitulate to his demands I cannot be Buddhist.

" I see you have not answered the question as to whether you are Buddhist or not, so it is now clear that you are a non-Buddhist making sport with other people's religion,…" -- Yworo (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) "I ask you again (third time I think), are you a Buddhist?" -- Yworo (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note how he makes up his mind that I am not a Buddhist in order to attack me, while again asking me if I am one an hour later.

"Just as well, there aren't any such texts." -- Yworo (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• This was a summary dismissal of religious texts that go against his sense of religious orthodoxy and what he nevisions to be my personal beliefs.

"I've made no attacks. I'm sorry you don't appreciate my humor, it's meant to lighten things up. And you've reacted precisely the same way to every argument that every editor here has made, not just me. That's your conscience that's bothering you. Your reactions are those of a person that knows in their heart that they are in the wrong. And it is Wikipedia's role to prohibit offensive user names." -- Yworo (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

• When a user is telling me what is in my heart and mind they are engaged in open, unequivocal personal attacks. The fact he tries and dismiss his earlier attacks as "humor" only adds insult to injury. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bodhislutva is now blocked per the consensus in the username discussion. I don't think this discussion is serving any legitimate purpose and is aggravating the situation rather than resolving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Closure is fine with me. Yworo (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)