Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TravisTX (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 1 November 2008 (→‎Greg L: tirade?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active alerts

    User:Causteau Policy interpretation. What constitutes a justification to revert edits, and what constitutes an edit war

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – Visit WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR as mentioned by complainant already

    This discussion pretty much defines the differences of opinion needing comment. For anyone thinking that the discussion is going ahead and therefore needing no help, please look at the rapidly expanding archives for the discussion page of the E1b1b article, since this editor started to monitor it only a few months ago, which shows that this type of policy misunderstanding (well, that's my opinion) keeps coming up but never gets resolved. (From the occasional brief glance at this editor's work in other parts of Wikipedia, similar problems occur elsewhere. His own talkpage is also quickly building up archives, containing frequent accusations of edit warring and the same typical responses showing that this editor believes when he reverts edits, it is actually he who is most closely following Wikipedia guidelines.) There are on-going problems editing the article in a normal way. Changes of existing edits are being reverted, so the only way to get in new material is to add text which often covers similar ground to older edits. The article quality must therefore get worse over time. On the few occasions when third parties have entered discussion there has often been some improvement in the situation, and having more third party involvement seems the most promising way to get a more constructive situation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like a content dispute to me and not an issue for Wikiquette alerts. Follow the steps at Dispute resolution --neon white talk 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, an editor who claims that they can revert as much as they want so long as it is to keep a reliably sourced statement in an article, and that such behaviour cannot constitute an edit war represents a problem. Admittedly it's not exactly a civility issue, but it's definitely not a content dispute, either. Note that Causteau is not joking or just expressing themselves ambiguously; they have just been warned for 4 consecutive full reverts on The Jerusalem Post, and this was not their first edit war. The following was part of their justification: "And WP:3RR does not apply to re-inserting material from reliable sources -- that is how Wikipedia functions: on verifiability!" [1]
    The quotation is from the ANI thread that I started on this editor (see archive). I hoped that an admin would explain very clearly that this is not how Wikipedia functions. Instead an admin with a (long past, I believe) history of edit-warring on related articles decided to treat Causteau and me symmetrically, which Causteau apparently took as confirmation that their interpretation of policy is sound.
    In my opinion it would be the duty of Khoikhoi and Elonka to give some explanations to this editor (Andrew and I are obviously not taken seriously by Causteau), but they simply didn't respond when I asked them to do that. Causteau apparently believes that these two admins are backing them.
    Moreover, as to civility, Causteau's bizarre and over the top accusations of policy violations against everybody who disagrees with them, often repeated almost literally several times in one thread, his extreme condescension, and all this while misunderstanding policy very fundamentally, are definitely a severe civility issue. For evidence of this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172#Synthesis,_editorializing, and abuse of primary sources and Talk:Press TV, as well as the continuation at Talk:The Jerusalem Post.
    A general problem pattern seems to be that this editor never lets anyone know if/when they realise that they made a mistake. It's totally unnerving if you have to deal with someone who tries to edit-war in a statement from 2000 that purports to contradict that an event in 2004 happened. If this editor subsequently does not admit that they made a mistake, there is no basis for collaboration.
    I have been somewhat active at WQA in the past, and I believe this is a good place to deal with this situation. The alternative would be for Andrew and me to just report the editor for their next 3RR violations until their block log is so long that we are taken seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -

    This is definitely not a content dispute., but this misunderstanding is understandable. The passage I have selected as a reference is a pure and simple discussion about policy, at least until very late in the discussion. Have a look at that aspect and please be careful not to give up too early. Just comment on those policy discussions if you want.
    I can understand why other Wikipedians tend to assume, perhaps want to assume, that such cases are something technical that they can't follow. That happens a lot with this particular editor, but I think that anyone who has ever edited an article together with Causteau knows that all these problems come from his understanding of policy. It very rarely has anything at all to do with a disagreement about actual facts. He often defends my old edits from my attempts to change them for example, on the basis of his interpretation of rules, so he says.
    Indeed, the problem has perhaps been worsened by the fact that the actions of some admins (not only in the article I work on) have seemed to take his side - at least by his own interpretation. This is now a problem which repeats. Just being nice to each other and trying to talk things out on the talk pages has failed repeatedly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Following are direct quotes from the key part of a policy discussion which I (and apparently others) believe represent the core of a constantly repeating problem in articles where this editor, possibly with good intentions, is working in recent months. These particular comments about Wikipedia policy concerning reverting and bad faith versus good faith came out of a discussion about whether the word "common" could best be replaced with a more exact and detailed description. In other words, the "reliably sourced material" which caused such heavy debate, is one word, which is only being accused of vagueness. There was no dispute about facts. Nevertheless the core of the position against adjusting the text was only that the if anyone removed the word, it would be according to Wikipedia policy that such an edit should be reverted "in no time", simply because the word "common" (like many other words) can be found in a scientific article, and is therefore properly sourced. Believe it or not, this is a typical debate for anyone trying to co-edit an article with Causteau, and the types of reverts being threatened in this discussion happen constantly. The normal reaction of most editors is to avoid editing those articles. I agree with Hans Adler that the problem has been oddly exacerbated by some admin comments which Causteau understands to be supporting of his position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    ...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase [using, in particular] the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    ...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Whilst there does seem to be etiquette issues in the debate, i still maintain that this is down to a content dispute and could be solved using dispute resolution. Third opinions and rfcs will often provide editors with correct interpretations of guidelines and policies leading to a consensus. Saying that the user needs reminding about AGF no personal attacks and edit waring --neon white talk 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already provided the solution: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. From my view, the original NWQA tag was correct. -t BMW c- 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On account of the user having now taken his personal attacks to the 3RR board, i have issused a final warning about personal attacks and civility. --neon white talk 13:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this a bit confusing. On the 3RR board the same Wikipedian has said that this should not be handled as a 3RR case. There is clearly a problem that needs handling, whatever the correct way is. The editor involved has openly stated his own "policy" (quoted above) which is in conflict with Wikipedia norms and is tantamount to an open threat to start an edit war whenever anyone tries to edit. I just would like, if at all possible, to be "allowed" to try to make an article better and not to be reverted by someone who reverts without seeing any need to discuss the case, read what is being reverted carefully, or compromise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. First in case it is not clear, the 3RR report, which was accepted, concerned other edits - examples of what can come from a more general problem which I had proposed was a Wikiquette problem, perhaps. In short, this Wikiquette report, which seems to be something knows what to do with concerns the same editor's own explanations about how he interprets Wikipedia policy as forcing him to revert, sometimes within seconds of an edit, anything that has been sourced from a verifiable source, including minor grammatical words which are being replaced with words which are equally well sourced. I would think based on previous experience with other policies and admin statements that this editor interpreted in favor of giving him rights to revert without consideration, that if someone not involved in editing with him would explain the error, this would help greatly. Now here is a new post from the same article discussion page, justifying reverts, done within seconds, of three different edits: [2], [3] etc. So the problem is not finished.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New 3RR report. Reason for also continuing to post here is that the edit warring is a symptom of a Wikiquette problem that goes down to policy understanding and/or abuse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil and vitriolic "Angry Mastodon": User:Nukes4Tots

    This guy is out of control and needs a breather, if not more significant admonitions from Administrators. See his user page for how he responds to other editors. He reverts comments from his talk pages in an attempt to supress the reproach from other editors who seem to give a damn about civility here. As you will see, he's been blocked before. I'm not the only one. Critical Chris (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (cur) (last) 09:31, October 25, 2008 Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (29,126 bytes) (rv: Go fuck yourself with this condescending bullshit. If you're right, Source it.. If not, shut the fuck up.) (undo)

    See the discussion here: Talk:B-2_Spirit#Conspiracy_theories and more of his vitriol here: User_talk:Nukes4Tots

    Edit comment in question was on my talk page on which Critical Chris posted a duplication of his comment on the B-2 talk page that can be seen here: [4] This was outright condescending and is an escalation of CC's attempt to get a conspiracy theory posted on the B-2 talk page. I freely admit to cussing on a edit comment on my own talk page in response to a spam post. CC is not editing in good faith and his post was tantamount to trolling. Sorry for feeding the trolls. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note his testy edit comment (on which my comment was based): [5]. "Add this to your rap sheet guy, you're getting quite the name for yourself aren't you?" Critical Chris is posting this as if my comments came out of nowhere. This is not the case. Further, he calls me a "Mastadon." Is this not also a personal attack? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir, "Mastodon" was not intended as an insult and is a technical reference to: Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons. Before placing this noticeboard posting here, and only after further escalation of uncivility on his part, I warned him already on both the B-2 Spirit talk page, and his personal talk page, which he promptly reverted. I've repasted the text below for reference purposes. I've tried to assure him, this is not a fruitful road and to please consider taking a break and bring himself back to the table when he's ready to edit collaboratively and collectively with other editors.Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) From your reverted talk page: "Your flippant attitude on B-2 Spirit talk page:" "Looks like you've got quite the rap sheet here on your userpage guy. From the B-2 Spirit talk page: "I'd be remiss If I didn't remind you to WATCH IT! and be careful with your handling of others edits, and of your regard for the contributions of other editors. There are a variety of other editors on here, some newcomers, and you poor attitude which apparently compels you to make thoughtless comments such as "you're wasting server space with this discussion," can only serve to marginalize the collaborative editing process. Keep it up and you'll end up on WP:WQA and other noticeboards. I suggest you take a breather and return to the article when you are in a better frame of mind."Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Then you come back with this: (cur) (last) 09:31, October 25, 2008 Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (29,126 bytes) (rv: Go fuck yourself with this condescending bullshit. If you're right, Source it.. If not, shut the fuck up.) (undo)

    BTW, I'm not attempting to post any so-called "conspiracy theory." I did attempt to offer encouragement to other editors who have complained of their edits being reverted. All of my edits are in good faith, I'm not "trolling" or "patrolling" which, in my opinion, is a complete psychological projection on his part (the pot calling the kettle black if you will). The "spam" to which he refers is my repost of Wikipepia guidelines that I recommended he read, which I felt could genuinely help him to become more civil and constructive here. A careful examination of his user talk page history and edits will conclusively show that Nukes4Tots has a history of incivility and disregard for the spirit of collaborative editing, manifold Wikipedia policies, and basic common courtesy and ettiquite. LOOK AT HIS TALK PAGE HISTORY, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. I'm a bit concerned at this point that if he is left unchecked to his own devices and inclinations, this will have a chilling effect on many other editors' and their willingness to make meaningful contributions on Wikipedia. Nukes4Tots --will-- continue his anti-social behavior with other editors. It seems the only thing "Nukes4Tots" understands is a shot across the bow. It's time to draw the saber and put him in his place. In the interests of civility and a better Wikipedia, we cannot let this BULLY! run rampant as he has telling many others in the future to "shut the fuck up" and stop "wasting server space" making sarcastic comments about "Yiddish BLOG entries," etc. I'm mean really? Is this what you want Wikipedia to digress into?Critical Chris (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an uninvolved editor, it seems like User:Nukes4Tots, looking at his contributions, the user can use a lesson and etiquette and to assume good faith. His edit summaries leave a lot to be desired, and so does what he says in the various talk pages. ThePointblank (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wishuponsarah

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – AIV or 3RR, but not civility

    This user has been war editing the article Physician. He/She neither adds to the discussion/talk page nor cites/sources any of their edits. They have been repetitively vandalizing. Many other users have warned him/her before. Wishuponsarah has been simply blanking the warnings off of their talk page and has continued to edit war and vandalize. Please help us control this user. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of warnings of your personal Talk page is tacit acceptance of the warning. If it's true vandalism, report them at WP:AIV. If it's 3RR, visit WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR -t BMW c- 11:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)

    Stuck
     – Pattern of problematic comments - needs to move onto RFC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I made these edits and reverts to Bigfoot per WP:NPOV. I'm fairly consistent in editing out weasel words regarding scientific analysis of fringe theories. I placed the following warning, after observing that other longstanding editors have warned Sean7phil of the same issues in the past. It appeared that WP:DTTR may or may not apply, but that is not germane to this discussion. Ludwigs2, who has been blocked several times for uncivil and other comments, decided to comment to my warning here, a wholly inappropriate comment. My point was not to WP:BAIT. In fact, Ludwigs2 has had no edits to Bigfoot, and was stalking me to the article and to my warning. I would ask that he be blocked for the uncivil comments for an extended period time, befitting his continued attacks on various editors and his past block history. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not much point coming here if you want a block - that's usually done at ANI. I hope you'll have diffs of the 'continued attacks on various editors', whether you decide to take it there or keep it here. Someone else is probably going to have to deal with this complaint, as I'm off for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, the block comment will be taken up if Ludwigs does not adhere to warnings. He's been "hounding" me across various articles, and I honestly don't read his edits too carefully, but I know he's been blocked previously for his activities, so I assume he's not played so nice with other editors. I don't intend to review his edits, except in the cases where his edits cross paths with mine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit concerned certainly bears a remarkable resemblance to this failure to assume good faith which was noted as a way of creating new disputes rather than resolving disputes. Ludwigs does not seem to have taken the good advice to heart, or has quickly forgotten it. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I thought OrangeMarlin's original warning was perhaps a level too high, judging solely by the diff provided, but considering the history of User Talk:Sean7phil, it seems to be about right. Bearing that in mind, I do think that Ludwigs2's response was inappropriate. Taking Dave souza's prior WQA links into consideration, it seems that Ludwigs2 is under the misconception that warning messages should be judged on the status of who made them (not something I've ever seen codified in policy). This is complicated by Ludwigs2's prior history with OrangeMarlin, of course, but even so it does seem that Ludwigs2 is prone to assuming bad faith when he sees a warning message. As to how to proceed with this concern, I'm not sure. A request for comment might be appropriate, assuming that editors have attempted to resolve this issue with Ludwigs2. I'd like to see what other editors have to say on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwig's behavior really does seem to amount to nothing more than stalking of OM to try to further disputes. I'm not sure if it is blockable but it is very close. This sort of behavior just isn't acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We are trying to phase out the user of the term "stalking", as it is a word that has a specific legal meaning in criminal law. As a replacement, try hounding. I agree that Ludwig2 is out of line, and note that Ludwig2 has been a proponent of unbanning User:Jagz,[6][7][8] which might be somehow related to this. I do think that Ludwig2 has been hounding OrangeMarlin as part of a larger wikipolitical conflict. Ludwig2, would you be willing to stop commenting on OrangeMarlin's activities related to issues where you had no prior involvement? Jehochman Talk 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was not aware of that name change. JZ's internal vocab is now updated. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also was not aware of that term change. is that mentioned somewhere "officially"? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on folks. Where have you been? WP:HARASS was just updated this morning. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By you, Jehochman. You changed the policy, then engaged in discussion at the talkpage, and are now browbeating people for not being aware of the page? (sigh) --Elonka 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that good natured sarcasm is wasted on some... Shot info (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) I'm really not sure what the issue here is. I have Orangemarlin's talk page on my watchlist (per previous communications with him). I saw shawn7phil's rather angry comment here (now deleted), and I thought it would be advisable to suggest that shawn calm down and take a longer view of things. telling Shawn that OM is not an administrator is not problematic (OM isn't, and Shawn did not seem to be aware of that fact). the second suggestion could have been phrased better - I apologize if that caused any offense - but still, my intent was to get Shawn to stop being angry about the issue and find a more productive approach. wp:BAIT has very good advice in that regard, whether or not BAITing is actually occurring.

    That being said, let me point out that I've asked OM a number of times if he would like to sit down and work out whatever personal issue is going on between us (on his talk page [9], on mine [10] and on the page of at least one admin [11] - I can dig up a couple of other places if you like), because it's obvious to me that this is mostly just a bad case of interpersonal friction. he has to date refused to do that, for whatever reason, but since he's opened this wikiquette, I'll happily renew the offer. this would be an excellent forum for that. so let's clear the air. OM do you want to start? --Ludwigs2 21:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (P.s. to SHEFFIELD) no, I don't think warnings should vary according to the person giving them (since warnings are supposed to be from the community as a whole) but I did want Shawn to understand that OM himself had no power to block. was that unreasonable? --Ludwigs2 21:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My thoughts on that topic are pretty well summed up here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, you're right. and on rereading, my original comment was a bit snappier than I'd meant it to be. well, let's hope OM and I can work this out here and now. --Ludwigs2 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, guess I'll start...
    Jehochman - I've given your proposal some thought, and as it stands I'd prefer to resolve the personal issues that underlie the problem rather than resort to making voluntary restrictions on my editing freedoms. however, I might consider such (as a last resort) on the condition that Orangemarlin promises the following:
    1. That he will not tell people they will be blocked or banned in any way that might lead others to assume he can and will do that himself. Statements like that, given in the middle of a content disputes, are unnecessarily threatening to newbies who don't know wikipedia's structure, and will lead them to a very bad misconception about the way wikipedia works (since they would assume that they could be blocked simply because someone disagrees with them). this would not apply to the use of warning templates, but would apply to edit summaries as well as regular talk areas.
    2. that he will refrain from using 'POV-pusher', 'uncivil', or any other terms that are generally considered to be mildly insulting, and refrain from implying them by linking essays such as wp:civil POV-pusher and wp:DNFTT that might also cause offense. of course, he would be free to say whatever he liked on user talk pages or administrative pages such as wikiquette, ANI, or ArbCom, but he would have to agree to keep them out of article talk pages, edit summaries, project discussions, and any other area that's supposed to be for the development of the encyclopedia.
    3. that he refrain from making reverts on any page where he is not willing engage in talk page discussion towards finding a consensus. that would not apply to vandalism, and with clear violations of policy the talk page discussion might be little more than a terse explanation of why the edit violated policy. but - generally speaking - making reverts without discussion simply encourages other editors to respond in turn (particularly newbies, who might think that's the way wikipedia is supposed to work), and that will just lead to edit wars.
    all these strike me as eminently sensible and civil behaviors regardless, so I don't think any of them would be a great hardship. In turn, I will listen to whatever restrictions he'd like me to volunteer to make, and if they're reasonable we can strike a deal. I'd still prefer to resolve our personal differences without this kind of thing, but... --Ludwigs2 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, just a note...I'm sure you already know, but most warning templates RIGHTLY warn people that what they have done could cause them to be blocked, and ANY user has the right to do so. Any user also has the right to disengage when needed. Any user also has the right to call a spade a "spade", if it fits...-t BMW c- 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ignoring Ludwigs' comments, since this is about him and his uncivil behavior. He's been rightly warned by everyone, and I'll request a block if he persists in his uncivil behavior. Otherwise, my request has been adequately reviewed, Ludwigs has been adequately warned, so I think we can mark this thread as resolved. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BMW - yes, I know that. you'll note that I made an exception to template usage in my comments. I was actually thinking of OM's tendency to tell people authoritatively 'you will be blocked'. but, as it is...
    OM, you can ignore anything you like - that's your privilege - but please note that I have been making good faith efforts to resolve this problem. Wikiquette is not a mechanism for warning people, it's a system for resolving disputes between people; since you refuse to help me resolve this dispute, I can rightly say that this is entirely your problem, and has little or nothing to do with me. If you don't want to settle this now, fine, but I will make sure that any administrator who contacts me about future issues is informed that you have refused to participate in any proposed solution, and thus you are clearly harassing me out of some petty, irrational grudge.
    I have no interest in playing games with you, OM, and I will make what efforts I can to treat you civilly and fairly, even if you insist on nursing whatever bad feelings you have towards me. but I am not about to take responsibility for something that is apparently happening entirely inside your head. your choice; your responsibility. are we clear? --Ludwigs2 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common for newbies, even experienced users to threaten with blocks where they believe a user is violating basic policy. It doesn't mean that the user can necessarily enforce blocks themselves, or that blocks will be enforced at all. The same applies for those sorts of terms where they think that someone is a problem editor. I expect all users to adhere to the point outlined in #3, because if they don't, they can end up blocked.
    Ludwig2, I'd certainly be one of the first to let OM know if I thought he was conduct was out of line, however, if OM brought up a valid concern like this in the future, I wouldn't consider it a form of harassment by a long shot, nor is it something that is confined to his head, nor do I see it as an attempt to play games with you. Given your emphasis has been on suggesting just that, I don't think the warning has gotten through to you and I'm marking this as stuck.
    At least 3 administrators on this occasion have found your comments to be inappropriate, and I agree with their assessment. Further, this is not the first occasion - you'd made inappropriate comments in a previous WQA quite recently as pointed out by dave, and subsequently made another problematic comment after the WQA was closed. When a pattern like this emerges, that's precisely when I'd encourage users to open conduct RFCs. If OM hadn't asked for a block, I'd have told him in my initial comment to go straight to RFC/U, because the desired outcome wouldn't include the word 'block'. Given the exceptionally short lapse of time between the incident dave pointed to, and this one, I still think it's appropriate to open an RFC/U. If it's come to that stage, you really should rethink your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ncmvocalist - I have no problem with rethinking my approach, and I'm happy to admit that my comment was excessive. however, that doesn't really get at the deeper issue here. OM is constantly angling to get me blocked, I keep trying to discuss the matter with him, and he keeps refusing. an afternoon's worth of discussion would clear the issue up nicely if he'd only participate in the process. I really don't want a hostile environment where another editor is always trying to get me in trouble in one way or another. If he wants to open an RFC/U then so be it, I'll participate and accept whatever the result is, but it strikes me as odd that we'd want to place bureaucracy ahead of simple conversation that way.
    I mean, I honestly don't even know what his issue with me is. maybe you can discuss the matter with him off-wiki and let me know? I'm open to all sorts of possibilities, but I just don't even know what's going on. --Ludwigs2 05:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this report is regarding your behavior patterns. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Outdent) I disagree OM...using the ABC model (see my userpage), an antecedent causes a behaviour, leading to a consequence. You have to track back to the antecedent. -t BMW c- 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup... and then the consequence is debated endlessly and fitfully... :) Sorry, couldn't resist. MastCell Talk 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lol - MC, all I can say to that is 'geewhiz...' --Ludwigs2 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ←Amusing as all of this is, I will take up the recommendation for an RFC/U. Though these comments are humorous to an extent, Ludwigs' response belies a behavior that there are no consequences to his uncivil attacks on me. He has ignored all warnings, engaged in tendentious blaming of others for his behavior, and he now shows a lack of respect for what was written here because he can join in the humor. Well that stops now. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So - again - you don't want to talk about the issue, you just want to find an administrative means of getting me in trouble. that strikes me as being against the spirit of Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy... well, please notify me when you decide to do whatever it is you're going to do. --Ludwigs2 03:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okayfine. If it's appropriate for me to ask, I'd like an administrator to formally request that Orangemarlin sit down and discuss this issue here in this wikiquette. if it's not appropriate, or Orangemarlin refuses to do so, then I'd like to ask that this discussion be closed as RESOLVED and/or UNFOUNDED, with a note that OM has (apparently) declined to pursue the issue. I see no reason for this thread to remain open (indeed, I see no reason for it to have been begun in the first place) if OM has no interest in pursuing a resolution. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User identified by various IP numbers (162.84.184.38, 71.247.12.83, 141.155.135.66, etc.)

    This same user who does not have a Wikipedia account has been asked several times by other editors of the Existentialism and Phenomenology articles to bear in mind Wikipedia policy on etiquette. Examples: accusing editors who cite sources of plagiarism and making statements like "there is not a single decent phrase in your proposal"[[12]]; comments like "I expect you to continue in bad faith, but hope that you find in your cold hearts...(etc)" [[13]]; and most recently comparing me with "Rain Man", which I suppose is a way of calling me autistic [here]. This is hardly conducive to editing. I am thinking of a RfC on user, but it's going to be hard putting together all the information because the constantly changing IP number means a succession of different User Talk pages. Can anyone help? (I have posted a notification on the Existentialism Talk Page, as the user now has several different user/talk pages corresponding to the different IP numbers.)KD Tries Again (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

    The problem is that discussion of these issues was taking place at [this talk page] - which you continued to edit after your IP number changed; similar issues with respect to another article on [this Talk Page]. I could start a topic [here], but by your own account you might have a different Talk Page tomorrow.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

    IP -- I don't think anybody has accused you of intentionally rolling your IP address. But even if it's Verizon doing it, it does make things confusing.
    How would you feel about just creating a dummy account for now until we get this mess straightened out? I think it would make things easier on everyone, and you would not be sacrificing anonymity (in fact, since your IPs would be hidden if you registered, by many measures you would be more anonymous..) You don't have to, obviously, but would you consider it just until we straighten out this dispute? What do you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still in full flood, now [here]. Oh, and at random other places on the Talk Page, e.g. "Please, do not waste out time by arguing boloney." (sic)KD Tries Again (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

    I think that the good faith is being diminished while the anon continues to edit while sidestepping the reasonable suggestions of Jaysweet. If the verbal unpleasantness doesn't stop, the anon might need something of a time-out, so as to reevaluate their behavior. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, a "timeout" is probably not feasible, given that the IP addresses the user is editing from are all over the map. If the editor continues to agitate to the point where a long-term block is necessary, it looks like it will be a game of IP whack-a-mole. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficulties with 85.82.179.226 (talk · contribs)

    Resolved

    -t BMW c- 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After removing a comment an anonymous user (85.82.179.226) had made on a discussion page, which seemed at the time to be forum talk, I received the following on my talk page:

    (Diff:[14])

    After looking at his comment that I removed, I decided that I probably shouldn't have deleted it, and decided to offer an apology. But he responded:

    (Diff:[15])

    I don't know what to do, exactly -- I think I'll just ignore him if he flames me again. I'm not sure where exactly the right place to report this stuff is, so please forgive me if I am posting it in the wrong area. Regards, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is the right place and right time! Just as a heads up, please use diffs as recommended in the instructions for this page. I have warned the IP user on their talk page. Please also ensure that you notify the other party when a WQA event is filed so that they have an opportunity to reply, and even so that they know there's a problem. -t BMW c- 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- I have provided the diffs. I was hesitant about warning him because I didn't want to get flamed again -- even though that wouldn't really be such a big deal. Thanks again! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, nobody expects the Spanish Inqusition -t BMW c- 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My response was an attempt humor, it was not intended to offend you. On the contrary, I appreciated your apology, especially given my language, and that was all I meant with the response. I know the original comment on your talk page was harsh and bordering to the unacceptable, but I was just becoming so fed up with the behavior and attitude of know-it-all Wikipedia editors in general and my fuse finally blew when someone, namely you, had removed an article talk page comment of mine and reprimanded me for "forum chat"! If my response was over the top, I apologize, but I honestly think the attitude and discussion climate on Wikipedia is extremely poor and that really frustrates me, given how often the site is used as a source of authority. Anyway, that's no reason to take it all out on you and I apologize once more. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (if I ever told my Editor that I used Wikipedia as a "source of authority" he'd fire me. It's a good place to start research, and the references/links from any article are more the authorities, which is why we insist on them) -t BMW c- 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't talking about work, but about how its used as a reference in general in e.g. polical discussions. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And its worth pointing out, anon, that if you dislike the "discussion climate" in Wikipedia, decide instead to shine out as someone who doesn't allow their "fuse to blow". Trust me when I say I know of what I speak. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you do because I have no idea. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, allow me to use small words, then: when you see mean words being added by mean people, do not add your own mean words, because it makes everyone mad, and makes it harder for people to be nice. Also, your milk and cookies will be taken away, and you sent to sit in the corner.
    Clear enough, now? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firefly322 (talk · contribs)

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – has been moved to WP:ANI

    Tired of these type of comments from this user here, here, here, and here. I'm concerned about these accusations that lack WP:AGF. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OM ... you've been around WP so long, I'm surprised you have used WQA :-) I left something short of a template on Firefly's talkpage, simply because I felt with the general atmosphere (and the fact that I have run into them before somewhere) that something more "personal" may help. I would ask that you remember to advise the other party in future situations so that they have a chance to reply, and to understand that their actions have been in appropriate. -t BMW c- 23:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes I have been around way too long, and I'm making use of this section because it fits my needs. Otherwise, I'll say something rude to them. And I merely forgot to inform the other party. Real life interposed itself on me. Damn phone calls from customers, sales reps, vendors, banks, and Obama/McCain.  :) And seriously, a canned call from Obama did interrupt my train of thought. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noticing my fancy schmancy template on your page LOL. Hope the light warning I gave does the job. -t BMW c- 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ←Additional concerns here and here. Quite possibly this needs to be elevated. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments noted. Hopefully my reply, and a good night's sleep will assist in the situation. -t BMW c- 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemarlin, you missed this one, which also targets you. I left a note at Firefly322's talkpage, which is how I noticed this WQA. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a link to a previous Wikiquette alerts discussion concerning similar behaviour from this user. Verbal chat 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you expect from someone who considers it their "civil duty" to attack other editors? I've found interaction with this editor to be an unpleasant exercise involving constant off-topic personal accusations of various forms of dishonesty, and this is apparently not an isolated impression. I'd suggest shunning, unless/until a more content-focused, collaborative approach is substituted, but perhaps I got up on the wrong side of the bed today. MastCell Talk 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User should first be given a brush to sweep up all the policy names that he/she seems to drop everywhere. Well actually most are just random essays of no consequence at all but still better explaination would help. There's an isssue of wikilawyering there. Recommend the user be reminded to assume good faith and not consider afd nominations as a personal insult. See if the behaviour improves. --neon white talk 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment His statements on his talk page state he follows the policy on good faith, but in the next sentence, he then paints editors and admins as being "parasitic", and "hollow on the inside". I think he has the best intentions, but he comes about it in an manner that is totally rude and offensive. I would have an admin give him a very stern warning to assume good faith, and see if situation improves. ThePointblank (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to suggest that someone mentor the lad/lass. They are clearly not some bumpy anon right off the bus from CrazyTown, so they might have something to add. If Firefly won't accept mentoring to help him focus his attentions on article quality (and away from editors), I say that Orange Marlin might be correct in that the matter might need to elevation to AN/I (though that should be a last resort). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OR is acting as a WP:TROLL. At least 5 AFD's in the past week confirm this. He or she is making aggressive value judgements against my contributions per the troll guidelines. I also believe that wikiquette is being abused in the same way that C.S. Lewis felt that his Oxbridge world was being abused by niceness creep (i.e., the N.I.C.E. organization in his 1947 book That Hideous Strength.) (Two of these AFD's closed as WP:SNOW: [16] and [17], two AFD's closing per WP:SNOW is a clear indication of WP:TE.). --Firefly322 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, your points are going to be better served if you take the time to offer the same level of good faith that you are requesting. While they are piddling examples, you needn't wikilink every name, term and wiki policy/guideline, and certainly not every time - it implies a need to show that you know from whence you speak (that can be done through what you say, not your name-dropping) as well as an assumption that we are somehow unaware of them. I can assure you, we are.
    Another thing to remember about Wikipedia is that, while editing here, you will not be the smartest person doing so. Ever. Allow me to repeat that: ever. It bears repeating because its more beneficial to work with other people, who often have direct or ancillary knowledge greater than yours. I've interacted with OrangeMarlin before, and he can be an annoying fellow that you want to slap with a trout until your arm falls off, but there is no value whatsoever with calling him a troll repeatedly. Maybe he is targeting your article creations. If you really think so, ask an uninvolved admin to weigh in, and get their take. Any merit your accusation has is whittled away by your unwillingness to engage sociably with your fellow editors, or resistance to using the process in place for precisely these sorts of problems. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Manipulation and Editing Control: Alastairward (talk · contribs)

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

    Since nobody has been kind enough to lay out the breach of etiquette that I'm accused of, I'll suggest that it has to do with my edits of the South Park articles The China Probrem and Pandemic (South Park)‎.

    I have been removing OR and speculation from all the South Park episode articles but recently a few users have taken extreme exception to my edits (including the one who left this note here). An Admin (Nightscream) has already addressed the issue on my talk page but the abuse seems to keep coming from the editors who objected to my edits. Alastairward (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue warnings about personal attacks and remind users to discuss edits on the talk and use dispute resolution if necessary. You are correct to remove original research from articles. I'd also remind editors about verifiability, self published sources and original research not being acceptable. If anything User:Alastairward should be given a barnstar for working to improve these articles. However be careful not to get involved with an edit war, i'd post a rfc and therefore gain a consensus and effectively end the dispute. --neon white talk 12:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Original Research is indeed not preferable for articles. It should always be avoided. Also, sections that are called "Cultural References" are a breeding ground for absurd facts or opinions. I don't think I'm the only one who is often annoyed by the stupid "this camera angle in that scene is also used in this or that manga, only different." Unfotunately, Alastairward keeps removing sourced "cultural references" too. Even when those sources are non-user-editable, like a newspaper website. This is well-demonstrated in his (our) treatment of The China Probrem. I do have to say that Alastairward is always polite, but he is also obstinate in his opposition of Cultural References, even of valid ones. I would like to refer to this section: Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles#What_this_guideline_is_not. Stijndon (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a matter of preference, it's clearly stated in policy Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Wikipedia is also based on verfiable sources, blogs, forums, wikis and fan sites are not verifiable. I have reviews the edited made and the websites used were very debatable as reliable sources. The citations removed were not newspapers. Remember anyone can create a website, info needs to be backed up by reliable second party sources. You both need to cease edit warring on this article and use the talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard if the debate is the reliability of sources. Alastairward's edits seem to be in good faith so i fail to see an etiquette issue here. It's a content dispute use the dispute resolution. From the debate on your talk page it seems that you are not get completely familiar with the principle of original research so a read of WP:NOR is recommended. --neon white talk 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not the lack of cites as much as his attitude towards removing them and the users posting. Several cultural reference sections have been cited, only for him to remove them with a snide remark blatantly breaking WP:CIVIL. Look at his history closer, and you'll see what I'm talking about, most notably on the china probrem. He has caused numerous editing wars by removing both the much-loved sections and their valid references and needs to be stopped (an admin telling him to stop was apparently not enough). He loves to slap guidelines in our faces, but he obviously does not follow his own links because others have pointed out policy pages he continuously breaks, and it needs to stop. I got a little steamed at him (his snide remarks are a primary cause, the edits are OK if they follow policy) and recently had an admin tell me to cool it, but he is no better in his remarks back to us in the talk pages discussing the editing wars he causes, and in his edit summaries (e.g. "Yawn, ...", etc.). Either way it needs to stop so we can all get on with our lives since we have better things to do. I'm all for improving WP, but the cultural references sections are one of my favorite reasons for reading a WP article on a SP episode recently aired (or re-ran), and if removing them was not bad enough, removing them when they have cites (on every single episode article), which do indeed keep them from breaking OR (although the remover in this case breaks WP:CIVIL in the edit) is enough to make me and others stop reading them altogether, and my survey results reflected that. As one user put it: "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, looks like a duck and everyone knows its a duck, its not a duck until Matt or Trey explicitly say so somewhere other than the actual episode", and that to me sums up this whole situation, only it does not mention a snide user removing references to the duck to everyone on Wikipedia's dismay. I am certainly only one of many on this side, and while numbers don't help correct WP policy breakage, it does mean something as one of SP's biggest draw is its cultural parody, and leaving that out of a WP article on an episode is like removing any mention of Microsoft vs. Apple/Microsoft vs. fill-in-the-blank from Microsoft's page because Microsoft.com does not ever acknowledge their existence. For the best of WP and its SP articles, leave the references in, (especially those with borderline un-needed cites due to blatancy), as any true SP fan/knowledge seeker would really want them there, and without a popular demand Wikimedia and Wikipedia would not even be here at all.Anthony cargile (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    In response to Neon white, the problem that Alastairward failed to mention is that he is completely removing cited sections such as Episode Continuity and Cultural References in various articles. Stated by Alastairward himself in the discussion of The China Probrem on October 19th, 2008, "Wikipedia is editable by all, nobody owns an article". This was in response to my repsonse that he removed an early version of the cited section. At that point, the section was not cited and, although it was true, I was aware that the information was not cited and therefore he was right to say that. However, I included the section again with a new title and sources to prove the facts. The websites provided a full video of the episodes I mentioned and according to Wikipedia, having a video depicting the episode in the website used as a source was verifiable for Wikipedia Standards. I provided 3 sources, all websites to the videos of the episodes i mentioned, and yet again, Alastairward removed it without any explanation before he did so and if he did state his resons TO DO SO, and we discussed a compromise, as one is suppose to, then we would have both seen reasoning for a compromise of the situation. However, he stated his reasoning afterwards and I suspect that he disabled the undoing of edits. If it was him who disabled that, it must be a clear violation. However, it is important to know who disabled that action, who removed the references for the entire article, why Alastairward is allowed to completely remove cited sources and whole sections, and why he is/was being hypocritical about including Cultural References, a section that he and Stijndon formed a compromise about and included it in the article of The China Probrem. If he was able to form a compromise of that, why is he unwilling to make a compromise of Episode Continuity; a section that I included after taking the neccesary time to include references that verified the information I provided and added to the list of references, supported the facts I stated, just for him to completely remove the section. How is that legal under Wikipedia standards? I would very much appreciate your response to this matter and I thank Anthony and Stijndon for their testimony to this matter. --J miester25 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange to see such polite conversation from J miester25 and Anthony Cargile, a change from the tirade of abuse and the open hounding they've demonstrated towards me recently. What I've said all along is that simply citing any old blog or fan site and saying "there cited", is not adequate. That's why I moved the speculation on so many South Park pages to the talk pages for discussion. Doing so has kept the main article clean and allowed cites to be dug up on the talk pages (which has proved successful so far.) J miester25, Anthony Cargile and Stijndon have all worked against that, simply saying that cites are there and reverting my edits (or simply reverting without an edit reason), with J miester25 and Anthony Cargile going further. They've left abuse on my talk page and the talk pages of other articles and tracked down old South Park related edits on other talk pages going back weeks or months to hound me there too. Would they mind explaining that to me here? Alastairward (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange to see you editing something correctly without a snide yawn or other sarcastic/uncivil remark.
    In the discussion page of The China Probrem, under the secion Trivia is incorrect, I included my reasoning to edit a section that explained the continuity of the moral used in the show. The original section, that i edited, did not include references. Since that did not include references and probably was shadowed by the first reference at that time, which was South Park Studios, I did not see it a violation to edit that without a source. The section that I fixed was removed because Wikipedia does not support Trivia sections as being reliable, as mentioned by Alastairward. I saw his reasoning, and therefore changed the section title to Episode Continuity, as it really is, and provided 3 sources supporting the information that i provided. Meanwhile, I noticed that under the discussion section of Trivia is Incorrect, i noticed that several other users took offense to the complete removal of the Trivia section i provided. So, I figured that the NEW section i included with references would solve the problem and the hostile text that users provided against Alastairward. Even when i provided the section with the references, AGAIN, he removed the section and asked why it should be continuity, as he did not see how it was as any sort. I was willing to provied my reasoning and show that the references I provided proved that it was by having him watch the excerpts of the videos that i provided in the references, but before i was able to do this, the section was removed. What Alastairward should have done was ask for reasoning before he removed and mark the section for discussion. He did not do any of this and removed it anyways. I think that it is a clear violation to remove the work of others that have been cited just because it is not what he agrees with. A section/article should not be bias and based on his opinions. As he has stated before, "Nobody owns an article." He has completey gone against what he stated and although he claims that he moved the speculation to the talk pages for discussion, he has also removed the cited facts. South Park Studios is not a blog or fan site. It is where the raw data of South Park Episode articles come from. The only reason why the unediting is a success is because either he or an admin has disabled the action to do so. Anthony, Stijndon, and I are not upset over the removal of uncited information, we are upset over complete removal of cited information that adds more insite to the article. If a section is cited with factual evidence to verify the information to add more to an article, a single user does not have the right to remove it. He does however, have the right to discuss it. If the section does not include references, the section does have the potential to be deleted. Since this is the other case, Alastairward does not have the right to completely remove facts from an article. I apologize for the hostile messages I exchanged with Alastairward and I did so for his stubbornness and his unwillingness to resolve this issue. I am offering a compromise to this situation so that Anthony, Stijndon, Alastairward, and I are happy. I would like the information included and i would like a REVISED title to the section. I would also like the references included in the section so that it is verifiable information that i added before that was removed. I would appreciate if Alastairward would not remove CITED INFORMATION blately just because his opinion does not match the information. If he doesnot agree with the information, he should bring the topic forward ONLY in the Talk Page so that a compromise can be resolved from the issue and marked the field in the article to be Under Construction so readers know the information provided is true, but that it will be tweaked in the near future. --J miester25 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can discuss the article on it's own talk page, this page is to be used to discuss my apparent lack of wikiquette, which you have failed to provide evidence for. When I get time, I can list all the edits you and Anthony Cargile have made to hound me and throw abuse, I would like your explanation of that behaviour and why you think it was acceptable. Alastairward (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The South Park studios website (where Matt and Trey directly contact the outside world without Viacom/Comedy Central) is certainly a valid source, especially since primary sources should be even more highly regarded for credit than secondary sources, which many times are, in fact, user-editable websites, and even at that anybody with a job title editing a website for pay or as an official position is a USER, so even those can be disregarded almost as easily as any old blog or wiki, and many news websites are calling themselves blogs just to add to the confusion. But Alastairward is right on something for once: We are here to really discuss his etiquette on WP and his snide remarks in the removal edits of the content everybody so enjoys, despite his opinion against it for whatever reason. The issue of his removal of properly cited content is a part of this discussion because thats what everyone is so angry about, since (again) cultural references/parodies/satire constitute a large portion of south park episodes, and a decent list of them should be present on the actual article since it is just as (if not more) important than the plot itself because of Matt and Trey's emphasis on it. Moving them to the talk page as you stated still gets them to us one way or another, but seeing as they are a major part of every episode, why not move the plot to the talk page? Or the Picture? Or the episode number? I'm sure that constitutes a "compromise", since the only sources for the episode number is the South Park studios website itself and God forbid we place any primary sources for a major part of the episode. South Park acts very much like a median to parody popular culture in a satiric manner, so removing the cultural references is utter blasphemy to a SP article, and causing harm to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, and Alastairwards hostility to anyone believing this not only gives me the impression that South Park goes completely over his head (he is a Star Treck follower/editor as well, a completely different breed of show), but also causes edit wars between him and a few too-literal non-specific WP policy followers and the rest of the South Park fans/WP users that actually know more on the subject and what it stands for than the opposition. At times its like an English major is editing an article on computer science, citing references without knowing anything about the article's target, although they (at least believe) they are "following" all the guidelines written for doing so for every article, not just special topic-specific rules. If we can use the actual episode as a source for the plot (which constitutes only roughly half a SP episode, the other being satire), why can't we use it also for the satire itself and add the cultural references to the article, not the talk page, where they belong alongside the plot so that the entire episode is thoroughly explained, not just a minute (completely secondary source referenced) plot description? Anthony cargile (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    And I would like an explanation why you found it necessary to delete cited information --J miester25 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment Firstly, wikipedia is not based on what we like to see in articles, content must be sourced by reliable second party sources (the episodes themselves and South Park Studios are primary sources). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan page. Secondly, editing an article, removing OR or disputed info might be edit warring, however it is not uncivil or anything to do with etiquette. Etiquette is interaction with other editors rather than editing practices. Disputes over content do not belong here, take this to dispute resolution, i suggest a rfc and the reliable sources noticeboard for the disputed sources. Editors have been warned about personal attacks and edit warring so i will assume this can be taken forward in a civil manner. --neon white talk 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neon White----------Explain to me this: The plot section gets it's information from South Park Studios. You do not see a problem with that. But at the same time, you have a problem with information that i have provided from the SAME SOURCE and you are saying i can't include it in an article because it didnt come from a secondary source? If thats the case, just delete the whole thing. You have been so narrow minded on this whole issue about "Oh its not a secondary source" and you have completely ignored the fact that Alastairward has removed just ONE section that didnt come from a secondary source, but came from a primary source, while the plot came from a primary source, and you dont see a gap there? Alastairward, I appreciate your cooperation in forming a compromise, but I now have a problem with Neon White. --J miester25 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been much dispute about the original sourcing of plots previously without much agreement. This is the policy which applies "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." from WP:NOR. THis includes plots, however they may be ok as they can often be agreed upon and written in an objective manner without much contrversy, whereas critique and analysis etc are purely subjective and should only come from secondary sources. In summary it depends what it's sourcing, avoid using it for coontentious points. As i have suggested use the noticeboard. Considering the previous discussion i'd have thought rules about personal attscks would be crystal clear here. --neon white talk 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a job for a quick read WP:RS followed by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -t BMW c- 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where to go?

    There is a user who is doing the following:

    • Misrepresenting other editors instead of tackling their actual arguments (using ad hominem).
    • Repeatedly posting content from their talk page onto a guideline talk page, making it appear on the surface they are posting a new argument when actually their point of view has already been discussed and rejected many times on the same talk page.
    • Repeatedly claiming consensus doesn't exist when there is a large talk archive demonstrating the consensus. When asked to provide substantive arguments the user refuses to do so then goes quiet for a few weeks only to repeat the whole process again. This is demonstrative of forum shopping the same issue repeatedly on the same talk page.
    • Using their talk page to make false accusations of harassment, especially using misrepresentative and personal attack edit summaries and page titles, when actually the user has been reported and blocked for edit warring on this subject. The user then misrepresents the comments of the admins on the same "harassment" talk page.
    • The user tried to get mediation, by again posting the same refuted point of view from his talk page, but this was rejected by the mediator when it became apparent there was nothing to mediate.
    • The user is also demonstrating obsessive behaviour related to certain editors by his talk page to archive the edits of other editors and then misrepresenting the edits of other editors.

    Since the edits on the surface do not appear to be obvious vandalism (even though the claims of the user are untrue this is only demonstrated after reading the talk archives) the normal administrators vandalism forum doesn't seem to be the right choice. Repeatedly misrepresenting other editors with false claims of harassment is actually a violation of WP:NPA. The user has been asked to stop quite a few times by multiple editors but this has had little effect. Therefore I am a little unsure where to take this. Does anyone know which would be the correct forum? Fnagaton 08:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I would say WP:AN or WP:ANI - based on your description, the user needs a mentor, badly. -t BMW c- 11:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try user conduct RFC if that hasn't been exhausted already - you may need to use an admin noticeboard mentioned by BMW during or after that RFC though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. Fnagaton 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ibaranoff24

    User: Ibaranoff24 has repeatedly made personal attacks against me. He has ordered me to “back off” when I have been adding sourced information into an article because he disagrees with it (here [18], and here [19]). He has repeatedly accused me of “pushing POV” (here [20], here [21] and here [22]), when all I’m “pushing” is sourced information. He has now accused me of sock-puppetry simply because another user is supporting me (here [23]). He has also shown agitation and aggression through use of bold, all caps and exclamation marks (as here [24]) and made statements regarding my edits such as “I refuse to bow down to flakey editors trying to insert bad sources and poor writing into articles in order to dumb down their content.” ([25]), and edit summaries such as "responding to user's arrogance" ([26]). Prophaniti (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - a MedCab case was opened here regarding the root dispute between Prophaniti and Ibaranoff24 (content dispute at Hed PE). I am confident that if we can get both parties to discuss the issue politely, all of these problems can be resolved. [ roux ] [x] 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the dispute i think both editors need to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I've never seen such a misuse and misconprehension of policy! This could have easily been dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard. --neon white talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are suggesting I have been acting in the same manner as Ibaranoff24 then I would have to assume you haven't been reading the discussion at all, sorry. There really is no comparison.
    The medcab resolution is for solving the dispute itself, this is regarding the personal attacks that have arisen throughout, something separate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once the dispute is solved everything should calm down. None of the personal attacks are that serious, though the user in question could do with being a bit more patient and stepping away from a dispute if tempers flare etc. --neon white talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the "attacks" are occurring as part of the medcab, they are part and parcel of that activity. BMW(drive) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority are from before the medcab started, a couple are from the start of it, but personal attacks are personal attacks, a medcab project is no excuse. Prophaniti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The MedCab is now closed. [ roux ] [x] 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to the NWQA tag: the medcab is unrelated to non-civil behaviour. Most of the incidents took place before it, and it has been closed because Ibaranoff24 refuses to co-operate with it anyway. As such, could it either be dealt with here, or could someone refer me to where to take the issue if not? Prophaniti (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restored here. The issue is not yet resolved: if this genuinely isn't a wikiquette issue, I would like someone to refer me to where I should take it. All that's been said so far is "There's a medcab.". The medcab was not explicitly related, and went no where anyway because Ibaranoff refused to co-operate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the NWQA tag. The simple reason was this: while MedCab was active on the case, there should not have been an additional discussion here. If the behaviour is still continuing, then please provide NEW DIFF's of that activity so that we may move forward. -t BMW c- 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior has ceased in the sense that I have given up for now and left Ibaranoff to his own business for the time being. What I have been looking for since coming here is some kind of warning to the user in question, even an informal one, that his behaviour is unnacceptable. I know this board cannot enforce blocks or anything like that, and that's not what I'm after, just some kind of warning to him that he has been completely ignoring basic rules of etiquette, and my own repeated warnings of such have gone completely unheeded. If this isn't the place for that, then as I say, a redirect to where to take it will do just fine. Prophaniti (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find templates here --neon white talk 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg L

    User accompanies a tirade of false allegations and straw-man arguments with an invitation to me to "pour petrol over yourself, and set yourself alight". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn’t invite him to do what he alleged above and he full well knows that. His claims are utterly baseless. He is just wikilayering here. I employed exaggeration to point out that he is making an overly big deal of an issue on which no one else agrees with him.

      This editor is becoming a real pain. He has twice deleted an animation and everyone else has been telling him he should not do so. Please read Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass for context and to gain insight into how this editor is being disruptive. I further ask that this editor be sanctioned for wikilayering and misrepresenting my actions, which constitutes a violation of WP:Civility, which states “[incivility includes] Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.” Greg L (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=249083453"