Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 9Nak (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 12 May 2009 (→‎Continued personal attacks from 9Nak: A last defence – and a point well taken.). 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

    Template warring?

    Article Plumping - this article was tagged essay-like and the creator of the article User Talk:Notoplumping keeps changing this to a template that doesn't exist. I have supplied him/her with a list of actual templates. I don't want to end up in a 3RR - I wasn't the person who originally tagged it in any case, but I'm not sure how to respond to someone who just keeps on repeating the same markup error.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was already involved with editing this article, so I'm not sure I'm the person to respond, but I undid the addition of the non-existent template, and warned Notoplumping about edit warring and sockpuppetry, as there is a mysterious WP:SPA whose only edits were to add the same template. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I noticed that. Thanks for taking a look--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for helping clean this up, all. I'm looking through the links you sent me (much appreciated) to try and edit this to fit Wikipedia standards. I still don't quite understand what you mean by the templates. I've contacted a potential adopter to help with this. If either of you would like to help with this, I'd appreciate it as well. Thanks Notoplumping (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Notoplumping[reply]
    Explain what you were trying to do, and I;m sure someone can help you achieve it. I thought you were trying to insert a template to say that the content wasn't encyclopedic. If you were just trying to say you thought it was, then just erasing the template **and explaining why you thought so on the talk page** is the way to go.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here [1] and here [2] are examples of what we are talking about. You changed the template from {{essay-like|date=May 2009}} to {{encyclopedic|date=May 2009}}. The essay-like template causes a template box to appear on the page, while the encyclopedic template does not exist and merely produces Template:Encyclopedic on the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammersoft (talk · contribs)

    Resolved
     – dispute resolved, no action necessary at this point. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Could an uninvolved editor please review Hammersoft (talk · contribs)'s recent behaviour? (Most notably this, which is pretty self-explanatory). –Juliancolton | Talk 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not really uninvolved, but my experience of Hammersoft was extraordinarily unpleasant and uncomfortable too. Majorly talk 15:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I feel there is a need to comment more extensively on an AfD, I will [3][4][5][6][7]. A casual review of my editing at AfD by this administrator would have born this out. He failed to do that. Instead, he took me to task over one edit. Then, not liking my response, he suggested I refrain from commenting at all. When I asked him to stop hounding me, and indicated how he was hounding me, he drags me before this board? Nobody has a right to force anyone to edit things any more than they want to edit them. I contributed to the AfD in question. the closing editor could choose to ignore my comments if s/he so chose. If I felt it was necessary to expound further, I would have. I didn't feel it was necessary, and I didn't. Julian, please be more careful in the future and review an editor's similar contributions before castigating them over a single edit. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how you started this thread. The matter you now bring up has been discussed by Xeno and I at User_talk:Xeno#XenosLaw, and as I made it clear there I am not baiting him, trolling him or otherwise trying to do anything but highlight his inappropriate block. Do you have some dirty laundry to air or no? If my conduct is inappropriate in your eyes, perhaps you could explain to me how I could be described by one editor as the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Wikipedia and then be told it's not a violation of WP:NPA? You might not like me, and frankly I don't care; it's your opinion and I'm not here to win your opinion. But, I am acting perfectly in line with Wikipedia ideals. I've insulted nobody. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a third opinion: having looked at the diffs and contribs, I agree that Hammersoft has recently been making minimal contributions while repeatedly showing disrespect for other editors, and that this pattern will call for sanctions if it continues. I have no previous involvement with Hammersoft to my knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I have no experience with Hammersoft (that I can remember) and am not contesting the assertion that he can be difficult to deal with (no personal experience one way or another) but the two diffs provided do not seem to warrent any action. The first seems like it would have been better handled if Julian had simply told Hammer that his !vote would likely be ignored by the closing admin if he did not provide a policy-based argument, and that would be that. As far as I know, there is no policy that says someone must either explain themselves fully or be barred from !voting in the future. As far as the situation with Xeno, it seems to me that if Xeno has a problem he should bring up the issue himself, but barring that it is an ironic comment about an admin's actions, not a personal attack or even blatant incivility. Just my opinion, I am not an admin and don't even play one on TV. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, though I felt it would have been disrespectful to simply say "your opinion will be ignored". –Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I got brought into this with a diff as well :-) (Having looked back at those diff's, the original ANI complainant posted about 9 long diffs ... I admit, due to WP:TLDNR, I looked at the first 8. The last one does, indeed, appear to have some incivility). Regardless, when someone asks you to explain your response a little better, the best option is not to be snarky, but to indeed reply - that's the way the community works. I see nothing actionable here, other than reminding Hammersoft that this is indeed, a group effort. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add that this archive contains the entire incident. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) ... so, with the discussion that Hammersoft links directly above, and the discussion he's having with Xeno ... is there anything else, or can we close this by saying "please don't do it again, because it's easier than apologizing later"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I second BW's suggestion to close this thread, was about to suggest the same myself after reading the discussion on Julian's talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the amplification that I don't feel I did anything wrong in the first place. If I had, I would have apologized for it. I think Julian and I clarified things between each other. It was a misunderstanding, and neither of us has need of apologizing for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Riwnodennyk

    User:Riwnodennyk reverted an edit in the article on Ukrainian language made by User:Glebchik with the following edit summary: "Rv Russian fascism". Prior to this, Glebchik already did replace an ethnic map with a language one and gave a reason for it in an edit summary. Riwnodennyk having been asked to comment on his edit, responded in an inconclusive manner. --Ahnode (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Use the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for the edits, if necessary ask for outside assistance. --neon white talk 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about "consensus for the edits" but about calling someone a fascist without a reason, which is insulting and unjustifiable. --Ahnode (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, however there's a discussion on his talk page already and I've also given a more formal warning about it. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, thus please drop the grudge and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Nja247 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued personal attacks from 9Nak

    Would like assistance to ask the community to intervene against 9Nak from continued abuse and personal attacks e.g. You are an even bigger idiot than I had previously thought. 9Nak (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks--Julius.mampara (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You've already warned the editor and the behaviour has not continued so there's not much more can be said.--neon white talk 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that "Julius Mampara" is a derogatory name for a South African politician named Julius Malema. This editor is in fact a troll, and I'm about to file a report at UAA; just commenting here first. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst this editor is incredibly incivil, it's too early to label as a 'troll', so i ask you to assume good faith on that matter and avoid accusations that could potentially inflame matters. --neon white talk 11:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption of good faith has long since been trumped by action. Specifically, this diff. 9Nak (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if you posted the wrong diff there but that seems to have no relevance to this at all. --neon white talk 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the right diff. Julius.mampara identified himself as responsible for the edits of that IP in his first two edits after registration. Sorry, I though even a cursory examination of the edit history (to determine whether this is a troll or not) would have made the link obvious. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing there that really suggests bad faith. You need to remember not to make assumptions and assume good faith if possible. Accusations of improper behaviour require strong evidence not supposition. --neon white talk 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? You don't see strong evidence of bad faith? I find that utterly astonishing. Indulge me and let's just run through the series of events here.
    * User posts that claim of HIV, which links to a source that has nothing at all to with the content posted (dif).
    * User undoes the vandalism reverts by two different editors – then changes the claim from a false source to personal knowledge while harassing a reverter. (IP contributions)
    * The page gets protected and the IP blocked, so the user registers Julius.mampara, an insulting username, to evade the block. (creation log)
    * In order to evade the page protection, user creates the entry Julius Mampara (deletion log)
    * User approaches me to insert a link to a (newly created) website that implies HIV infection of the subject in the original entry. (dif)
    I see a troll trying to start an online smear campaign. But I'm 9Nak (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have every intention of continuing the behaviour. I will not be civil towards morons who attempt to use Wikipedia in online smear campaigns. Trying to use fraudulent sources to claim HIV infection in a BLP is, in fact, idiotic. On the basis of that and subsequent actions I'm also comfortable with calling this editor a cretin, an imbecile, a dunce and a lamebrain. 9Nak (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia policy requires you to be civil towards all editors. If you come across articles which are not written from a neutral point of view then work on them with other editors to improve them. If you come across editors that disagree seek outside help to gain a consensus. Text that violates WP:BLP should be removed immediately, if it continues to be added there are several ways forward. Firstly, speak to the editor, explain wikipedia's policy on bio info without resorting to personal attacks, you need to assume that the editor is unaware of the policy. If it continues to be added you can request protection or bring a particular editor to the attention of an admin. All this can be done without the need to be incivil. If you can't do that then you are harming the project and will likely face a block. Issued a final warning if it continues file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --neon white talk 11:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    9Nak, your approach and outlook is not constructive to this project - it is important you follow Neon white's approach in order to avoid being blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, from this discussion it would seem that my approach is indeed in conflict with the values of the community. I'd never have thought it. 9Nak (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As evidenced here, there's incivility on both sides. I urge both of you to cut it out or risk being blocked to prevent further disruption. Move on and get back to building an encyclopaedia please. Nja247 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes for reviewing party: ANI report from two days ago and UAA report from today.

    Constructive edits being repeatedly called "vandalism", block warnings posted without any attempts of discussing the matter

    Resolved
     – Closed by filing party.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    [8] [9] [10]

    While the first two times were reverted with either a blank edit summary or illogical reasoning, last time I found sources for the obvious fact the Jerry Seinfeld is a Jew (gotta love Wikipedia for that). The last edit, which as I mentioned is properly sourced, got reverted with a "last vandalism warning" before blocking [11]. The previous (and first) warning was on level 3 [12]. As far as I know, you should try and discuss the matter before even issuing level 1 warning. I know that I myself hurried into templating the user here, but I apologized here. I don't think it's a proper way to welcome a new contributor, especially considering my edit history, which contains mostly constructive and useful edits. Drone2Gather (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1) The link already existed in the article, there wasn't a need to move it. 2) The link specifically calls him "American Jewish" -- you can't ignore the "American" part simply because you were raised with a particular viewpoint ("it is a part of what I am and how I grew up"). Please, again, use a verifiable link to a credible source that says exactly what you're saying when you reference it when changing the nationality of a living person, in accordance with WP:BLP His nationality is not solely "Jewish", he is a citizen of the US. I notice that you haven't mentioned the discussions that have occured on other users pages and on the Jerry Seinfeld talk page -- there were several attempts to discuss the matter. Banaticus (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "American Jewish" consists of two words: American – his place of residency and citizenship, and Jewish – his nationality. As you said yourself, "he is a citizen of the US." Yes, his citizenship is American, but his nationality is Jewish.
    • A discussion that starts with "stop vandalizing pages or you will be blocked" is bound to go awry. I made that mistake myself, but quickly apologized; besides, I carefully chose the template so it has the least aggressive wording to it. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't his nationality also be at least partially American? You seem to think that it's an either/or situation, that he can't have both Jewish nationality and American nationality. But he lives in, works in, has citizenship in and apparently doesn't have a problem with the US, at least you haven't shown a reference that says otherwise. Why can't the article continue as it currently is, why does it apparently have to be an either/or situation? When you say, "I carefully chose the template..." which template are you referring to? Banaticus (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to take my words out of context and to generally misapprehend me. Why does he have to have a problem with the US? What does this have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that a Jew is born a Jew, simply because of having Jewish parents. I don't have to remind you why it is so, historically speaking. Seinfeld is an American, no doubt about that, and he's been proudly representing the US worldwide. Still, "American" refers to his citizenship, while "Jewish" refers to his nationality. My Israeli identification card indicates my citizenship being Israeli and my nationality being Jewish (it's fairly old; the nationality's been omitted from Israeli ID's for several years now for privacy reasons). Growing up in the USSR, I always knew that while my citizenship was Soviet (Moldavian, to be precise), my nationality has always been Jewish. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to keep having what's becoming the same discussion in two places at once. You pick the place, either Talk:Jerry_Seinfeld#.22Jewish_American.22 or here, then I'll continue that discussion in that place. Banaticus (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, please post a clarification on my talk page regarding your "stop vandalizing or you'll be blocked" template. I've erased it, but it still looks bad on my history. When we're clear on my good faith, I'll gladly continue the discussion as we both want the best of Wikipedia's interests. (I gotta sleep soon, so it'll most likely be tomorrow.) Drone2Gather (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take content discussion to the article talk page, this is not the place for it. Vandalism means a deliberate attempt to compromise the project, good faith edits are not vandalism and use of the term is best avoided. --neon white talk 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, although your quote about the term being best avoided is the point I'm conveying here: I am not a vandal and let this be noted, crystal clear. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record 'nationality' should be what it says on a persons passport. It should not be subdivided on the basis of ethnic origins, political affiliation, religion or anything else. Such info can go in the article. --neon white talk 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When one is born to a Jewish mother, they are automatically considered Jewish by nationality. You are more than welcome to conduct a research. Drone2Gather (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ethnicity not nationality. There is no sovereign nation known as jew, jewish or jewland etc. like there's no italian america, native america or african america. They are all just American nationality regardless of what ethnic group they belong to.--neon white talk 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Jerry Seinfeld must be the holder of an American passport, it carries the wording: "Nationality: United States of America." I suggest that User:Drone2Gather's frequent reverts of the Jerry Seinfeld article, though they are not vandalism, are very close to edit warring. If Drone2Gather is concerned that a vandal warning will look bad on his record, his repeated reversion of a highly-visible article to a version that only he supports will not look good on his record either.EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All parties please note' This page is for discussing breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. While it is good that you are discussing it now, please keep the content dispute on the article talk page where it belongs. (give me a minute to review diffs and I will comment on possible civility issues) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, it does not seem that Drone was acting in bad faith, so vandalism warnings probably are not appropriate. However there is edit warring occurring and all parties should cease and desist and go to the talk page. If you find yourselves having trouble reaching consensus there, get help from WP:3O or WP:RFC. If edit warring does not stop, request protection at WP:RPP. As is often the case, this is a fairly minor point that is getting blown up into something bigger than it needs to be. May I suggest that the involved parties take five. The world isn't going to end if this article doesn't read the way you want it to for a few hours or days or even forever. There are several million other articles that could use some help, and also a handy "off" button on your computers that can help you get some perspective on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote on the Seinfeld talk page – Jewish American it is. Closing discussion due to requests. Drone2Gather (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – Although this IS a WQA topic, you have forum-shopped this into WP:ANI. Don't do this again
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.

    Landon stated: "I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."

    1. Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
    2. Insults my knowledge of Wikipedia policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
    3. Said I don't use common sense.
    4. Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
    5. Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.

    I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating: "I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."

    He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."

    1. He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
    2. He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).

    Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating: "Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."

    There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.

    None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:DreamGuy Incivility/Personal Attacks

    User:DreamGuy has twice reverted my attempt to create a reference on the original Psychopathia Sexualis book by Heinrich Kaan, falsely attributing it to Krafft-Ebing (who wrote a book with the title Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia Sexualis - New research on the field of Psychopathia Sexualis). While this is just an academic dispute, when asked for explanations on the issue, he's answering in an obviously abusive and offenssive way (see [13] and [14]). I ask for help. --MaeseLeon (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything too incivil there. --neon white talk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the underlying content dispute goes, I agree with DreamGuy 100%. However, he could have been a little bit less direct in his choice of language. One has to be really careful when an edit, or an idea, seems "silly" or "pedantic" or "anal" - it is all too easy to give other editors the impression that such terms are not being directed at them. I don't think that was the intention here, and I hope DreamGuy will take this on board in future. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the extremely aggressive tone MaeseLeon approached me with right from the start and the extreme mischaracterization of both the dispute and my actions, it's a bit ridiculous for him/her to run off here to try to complain about my behavior. But then that particular tactic is one that others have tried in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jza84

    I really don't want to do this, as it's probably a bit of a storm in a teacup. However, Jza84 insinuates here([15]) that I am a sockpuppet.

    The background is a discussion over a merge of Leeds and City of Leeds, which went on for a while, and of which I was an active participant. Jza was also involved, and disagreed with my (and several others') viewpoint. The merge went ahead, which Jza has been annoyed about, and has since been saying that it was a 'backroom decision' etc, and has made his accusation against me. He has made these comments without any sort of proof, and apparently without referring to my edit history or anything. Not only am I not a sock, but I wasn't actually involved with the merge at all. At no point did I say that there was consensus to go ahead with the merge, so if he's annoyed at the decision he should be focusing his attention elsewhere.

    I have approached him on his talk page User_talk:Jza84#Random_accusation, which was met with a rather snide response. I have further replied, asking that he remove his allegation and make it clear that it was unfounded, but have yet to receive a response.

    I am unhappy that Jza has gone around talking about me. It was only by chance that I stumbled upon the conversation in the first place, and am concerned that it will tarnish me in the eyes of other users. I wouldn't be so concerned if it weren't for the fact that he is an admin, and a user who has, to be fair, done a lot of good work. I don't want him hung out to dry, but at the same time, don't want these allegations to still be out there. I don't think I'm being oversensitive, but I'm sure you'll all let me know if I am :-) Quantpole (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be one thing to insinuate being a sock, but if the behaviour becomes more of an accusation multiple times it is uncivil: the basic rule of thumb is "file your SSI report, or STFU". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying I have no right to ask him to rectify his comments? I wouldn't be bothered if it wasn't an admin, as their opinions generally carry more wait, and they are held to higher standards of behaviour than the general user. Quantpole (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=289561511"