Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 8 December 2011 (→Protection from two editors who are rude and degrade articles: nwqa). 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 discussions

    Talk Page Sections Retitled as Personal Attacks

    I and another editor have expressed concerns to User:Goodwinsands about his editing history and possible multiple accounts since he started editing in January 2011. He now has renamed all those sections of his talk page to mock our concerns. He collapsed the entries under one title: Under the green bars: documentation of a tag-team harassment campaign. He renamed our section titles, per below. I think someone needs to explain Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and misuse of talk pages to Goodwinsand and encourage him to either revert to original comments or archive the whole mess.

    • POV Warrior #1 tries: false accusation of sock puppetry (Was at this diff “Your editing history?”) Details of why I was suspicious are in a later WP:SPI link below.
    • POV Warrior #2 tries: don't call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier (Was at this diff “BLPN Israel Shamir”) Regarding Goodwinsands adding a category to an article when that subject was currently under discussion at BLPN.
    • POV Warrior #1 tries again: bogus redefinition of 'revert' in attempt to pin a false 1RR. (Was at this diff "Gilad Atzmon: Edit warring notice".) Per this discussion (at this diff) Goodwinsands inaccurately stated and perhaps still holds that "No, a revert means undoing the actions of another editor within the last 24 hours."
    • POV Warrior #2 tries again: false allegations of sock puppetry (Was at this diff "Multiple accounts.") User:Off2riorob asked him about the possibility of multiple accounts.
    • POV warriors #1 and #2 tag team in false accusation of sock puppetry, no not sock puppetry, erm, er, er, give us a sec and we'll come up with it... (Evidently Goodwinsands split up the "Multiple accounts" section.) Seeing I was not the only with suspicions, I decided to investigate further and at this diff discussed which editors on one sock puppet plagued article Goodwinsands possibly might be a sock or multiple account of. I was told by an administrator at this diff that if I had suspicions I should take it to Sockpuppet Investigation.
    • POV Warrior #1 tries: another false accusation of sock puppetry Per administrator's comment I did so, whole discussion here. I guess it didn't present enough details and an admin closed it calling it a "fishing expedition."

    Needlesstosay, this kind of mocking behavior discourages people from trying to deal with real concerns. Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice. Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC 05:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a very easy solution to this problem, though I strongly suspect you will not want to go along: Stop bothering him on his talk page. Make whatever comments you want about him on other talk pages (like this) where he can't change the section header. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Civility says "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages..." This is the civility noticeboard. I'm just asking for someone to clue him in so the next person who has a legitimate concern isn't driven away by the mass attacks on those who have had past concerns. CarolMooreDC 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're worried about the next person, perhaps you should just wait for the next person to have the same problem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, just to be clear here, because I have kept the evidence of your campaign of harassment against me on my talk page, and because I have labeled it for what it is, you continue your campaign of harassment here by complaining that I have dared to complain about your campaign of harassment?

    One more for the list, then, isn't it. Goodwinsands (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ignore Brewcrewer as his advice is neither helpful nor appropriate. One does not tolerate uncivil behaviour until it bites another user. We talk to the editor and inform them of their behaviour in order to avoid future confrontations. Brewcrewer also appears to be involved with the accused having left a welcome message on the user's talk page. Not sure what the association is.
    With that said, have you notified Goodwinsands of this discussion? The behaviour described, and some other behaviour not mentioned, is not at all civil, but I would like to hear the editor's side of the story. I went to the talk page and did not see a notice there.
    Also, the behaviour of the other two editors is not civil. One does not allude to or hint that another editor is a sockpuppet. With that said, incivility does not call for further incivility.
    As a result of the edit conflict, I see that Goodwinsands knows what is happening here and continues to attack rather than comment on his own behaviour. This is for discussion not attacks. There was no campaign of harassment so there's nothing to complain about to. They were trying to engage you in conversation, which you don't seem to like to do. Perhaps a cool-off period would be a good first step--walk away from the article you're having contention over and come back in a week or two. If you're still planning on editing the same articles, discussion would be a good second step. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Walter Görlitz is correct. I looked at this report earlier but decided not to post because the refactored headings at User talk:Goodwinsands were not knock-out examples of incivility, and I thought my comments would be misinterpreted. However, the "One more for the list, then, isn't it" comment above shows that involvement is required. A good way to understand why Wikipedia's procedures is as they are is to contemplate what the inevitable outcome of not having those procedures would be. For example, if a civil and relevant comment at a noticeboard can be dismissed as "one more for the list", what is to stop those on the other side from responding in kind, with a downward spiral into what is seen at all unmoderated Internet forums. Please just stick to discussing issues related to improvement of article content. If unwelcome comments appear on a user's talk page, that user is entitled to simply revert them (and if wanted, a pointy but polite edit summary such as "misguided" can be used for the revert). But it is not helpful for community collaboration for editors to refactor the headings of posted comments and to add commentary about those who posted them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page headings are personal attacks and it would be best if Goodwinsands changes them. 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)
    Just to clarify, as I wrote above: Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice." I should have asked someone else to. But frankly he monitors all my edits so I knew he'd find out. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No editor can bar anyone else from commenting on that editor's talk page. Only an admin can lock a talk page and they have to have very serious reasons from doing so. The "barring" in an of itself is not civil. The best one can do is request that an editor not hound you on your talk page and open a case for hounding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As Goodwinsands' reply here indicates they are aware of the discussion, it's a moot point. I concur with both the interpretation that a "ban" is not supported by policy and the wisdom of respecting a request not to post a notice. I periodically post the WQA-notice myself if a poster has missed the instruction to, or, as in this case, made a conscious decision to avoid escalating the conflict. Gerardw (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note on no provision for "banning." I certainly comply when it's a matter of just discussing things on their talk page. But when it is a matter of alerts that need to be made, I'm glad to see we still have that right. (I also just remembered that "Retired" User:Spaceclerk also banned the same two editors as Goodwinsands because of our suspicions and an SPI. Will have to write that factoid down somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As the issue of a user "banning" another user from their talk page seems to be a perennial issue, I've created WP:NOBAN to link the existing policy statement. (It's easy to miss as it's on WP:User pages instead of WP:TPG. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'll refer to it should the need for some official notice to User:Goodwinsands arise again. CarolMooreDC 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor becoming increasingly uncivil

    Editor has become increasingly hostile and uncivil during Talk Page discussions and in edit summaries, resulting in unwarranted personal attacks against me. Diff links:

    This seems to have started when I spoke out against the editor's use of forum shopping and Wiki-lawyering when not getting the answers he was looking for at two forums. On his talk page, I asked him to step back for a bit and allow things to progress naturally at the noticeboard RfC's he's filed today rather than trying to force them to progress. His responses are in the diff links above. The latest personal attack from him that was the last straw for me: "I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life."

    The incivility from this editor has gone beyond anything appropriate and/or necessary, in my opinion. In the future, I want to be able to edit cooperatively and collegially with this editor, but the hard feelings and atmosphere he's creating and perpetuating as demonstrated by the above diffs are making that more and more an unlikely scenario. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Wikipedia". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Yes, your comments do sound "grumpy" (as you stated in your edit summary) and aren't exactly helpful. But I can overlook that. :-)
    (2) There's more, but thanks to your astute observation, you already found the "more" I was hoping someone would notice. He does seem to be not so new, actually......
    (3) There's nothing in the article in question (Natalie Wood) that suggests/implies/names anyone as being culpable in her death. This is - essentially - a fabrication by the named editor above and another editor who are reading way more into the article than actually exists.
    (4) Charges of ownership by this editor have no basis in fact. I'm not the only editor who feels MathewTownsend is being hyperbolic and too quick to react in regard to the article in question.
    (5) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are standards to be adhered to at all times.
    (6) I came here in an attempt to get the air cleared and give the above named editor a chance to rethink his own "grumpiness" because I want to be able to work with him now and in the future in an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperativeness. The direction he's going is making that less and less a possibility.
    Lhb1239 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Response from MathewTownsend
    You're misrepresenting, Mathew. In so doing, you're only making more of a case for your personal attacks and incivility. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lhb1239 should drop the WP:STICK, stay away from MathewTownsend's talk page, stop reverting MathewTownsend's talk page comment, especially trivial reversions like [5], and listen to the advice given by AussieLegend on the 3RR report. Gerardw (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! Lhb1239 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Active "hunt & attack" by editor

    Attacker

    Battlefields


    Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

    User:Guy Macon doing a lot of misbehaviours, angry editing [6]

    • "Plan of attack..." [7] - explicit edit warring
    • "Drop a hammer on him..." [8] - explicit edit warring
    • "Pizza connection fancies..." [9] - the Italian conspiracy
    • "I'm going to allow..." [10] [11] - enforcement-like editing
    • Witch hunting through Wikipedia [12] [13] [14]
    • Reverting-only interaction [15] [16] [17], rejecting even grammar fixes.
    • Involving admin User:Qwyrxian in active reverting-only interaction [18].


    Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?


    How do you think we can help?

    Get attacking user understand that "which hunting" and "worst faith assumption" are "wikipedia time wasting". 137.204.148.73 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you stating that you are not Blackvisionit (talk · contribs)? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    List of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

    Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

    Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

    --Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The complaints posted above by 137.204.148.73 (which, by an amazing coincidence, faithfully mirror the writing style of Blackvisionit) are simply a result of my attempts to protect the encyclopedia from an editor with a severe conflict of interest and ongoing behavior problems. When he was given some quite reasonable COI restrictions by an administrator, his response was to engage in blatant sockpuppetry. The biggest behavior problem is a total refusal to work collaboratively, a refusal to discuss controversial edits despite being asked again and again to do so (instead choosing to re-revert without discussion), and a refusal to seek consensus. The sad part is that he obviously believes that the rules don't apply to him, that he doesn't need to explain his edits, and that the real problem is anyone else who questions his ownership of the pages he edits.

    As always, I welcome a close examination of my own behavior, and I will take any criticism or suggestions to heart. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're definitely being uncool. As previously suggested to you [19], the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page. And it does appear you're following 137 around tracking their edits. Let's AGF and be more welcoming to a new user. Gerardw (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my monitoring of 137.204.148.73 is within policy. I have read WP:HOUND very carefully, and it says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." To that end, I have limited myself to only fixing those edits of 137.204.148.73's that are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, such as being unsourced and controversial, and I have consistently invited 137.204.148.73 to discuss these edits on the article's talk pages. I do the same whenever I see a clear violation of policy such as adding spam links or changing British English to US English on a page against policy - I look for other pages where the editor may have done the same thing. It certainly is not my aim to "create irritation, annoyance or distress" to 137.204.148.73. Given his pattern of behavior, there are several things I could do that I know would either totally piss him off or bait him into more misbehavior. I have carefully avoided doing any of those things, because my goal is to get him to stop being disruptive, not to become more disruptive. I bear 137.204.148.73 no ill will, and sincerely hope he will decide to start following Wikipedia's rules on consensus and discussion of controversial edits.
    As for the claim that "the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page" I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia's policies (primarily WP:SOCK, but there is also a wealth of information in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations) and I don't see where it is forbidden to point out that two accounts pass the duck test. While it is an essay rather than policy, Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry says "The more signs that are present, the more likely sock puppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain." Well, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt. I would also note that, as suggested, I opened a SPI. Alas, I got no answer. If there is a policy or guideline that specifically says that one cannot mention suspicions of sockpuppetry other than on the SPI page, please supply a link to the policy. It certainly is possible that I missed a policy, but I have looked. Sometimes an obvious sock is obvious.--Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for criticism or suggestions. I said you actions were uncool; I did not saying they specifically violated any policy. WP:AGF and WP:Civility suggest limiting SPI accusations to SPI. That said, I do think the admin community is not being very timely on the SPI. Gerardw (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a fair criticism (the part about me -- I have no opinion regarding the criticism of the SPI admins). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concur that it's appropriate to keep discussions in the right place. I also think it would be extremely helpful if another admin took action on the SPI, as I believe that Guy Macon's following of these edits is completely appropriate if, in fact, another admin agrees that they are the same person. I have now doubt, but I'm not sure if I've crossed the line over into WP:INVOLVED territory, so I need a second pair of eyes. If Guy Macon is correct, than we have an editor intentionally editing under an IP to avoid scrutiny. Blackvisionit proved very conclusively that xe cannot edit pages on this topic neutrally, and I told xyr quite clearly I would block xyr for attempting anything other than the most trivial edits on this topic. If the IP is the same person as Blackvisionit, they've violated that several times over, and thus need to be blocked in order to prevent disruption to the page. And, furthermore, if this is Blackvisionit, this WQA is an attempt to distract other user's from the problems xe has as an editor, to get criticism leveled at the person who is legitimately trying to protect these articles from POV inclusions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that, even if 137.204.148.73 and Blackvisionit have no connection at all, there is a consensus among the other editors that the undiscussed edits by 137.204.148.73 to Floppy disk hardware emulator, like the previous edits by Blackvisionit, bias the article towards one particular type of emulator. 137.204.148.73 refuses to discuss his reasons for making these changes (or anything else: his claims above in answer to "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" are fabrications). If only he would discuss why he wants to make changes when another editor challenges them, the possibility exists that a consensus could be reached that satisfies both parties. His refusal to discuss breaks Wikipedia's cooperative editing model, and leaves the other editors no path that could possibly lead to agreement.
    The same problem with 137.204.148.73's edits can clearly be seen in the edit history for San Severo. He removed what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material, and when asked to explain, engaged in edit warring while refusing to discuss his edits. I don't know anything about San Severo, while we know from geolocation that 137.204.148.73 either lives there or in a nearby town. His insight could be very valuable. Could it be that he correctly identified something that should have been removed? It's possible, but we will never know because he refuses to discuss his edits. All I can do is what I would do any time I see what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material removed without explanation on any article; revert with an edit comment encouraging discussion and place a warning -- also encouraging discussion -- on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see new content at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blackvisionit#28_November_2011 ].

    Ingresar entrada Horacio González (diputado)

    Not related to en.wikipedia or wikiquette; will post at User talk:190.190.96.136. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 190.190.96.136 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC) My user Zaratoga is bloqued so I can't enter here to edit this page. I don't know if I have to write in english. A previous page in spanish redirectme here. I will write in spanish but plese feel free to ask me to write my request in english if it mandatory.[reply]

    Hace aproximadamente 2 meses se creo la página Horacio Gonzalez (diputado) La misma tuvo varias ediciones, incluyendo algunas mias. La usuaria bibliotecaria Miss Manzana consideró que la misma hacia referencia a auto promocion y la borro. Si bien mi usuario es de 2007, al no estar al tanto (por no leer las normas de wikipedia) lo que hice fue reestablecer la página nuevamente. Esto derivo en mi bloqueo como usuario "para siempre". Accion llevada a cabo por el usuario Nixon.

    El motivo no es recuperar mi usuario sino establecer que la entrada era valida.

    Tanto Miss Manzana como Black Beast argumentaron "Auto promocion" en el articulo

    Algunos argumentos que puedo profundizar (no quiero ser extenso) Horacio Gonzalez es actualmente el presidente de la cámara de diputados de la provincia de buenos aires ademas de ser diputado. Es por 2do mandato consecutivo yesta proximo a un tercero.

    Dentro de lo que considera Wikipedia "Autopromocion" se menciona "Autopromoción: Definitivamente, no se considera relevante para una enciclopedia un artículo que trate sobre grupos de música, empresas, organizaciones o personajes que carezcan de conocimiento público." Claramente Horacio Gonzalez TIENE conocimiento publico, basta buscarlo en los portales de noticias. Es decir este requisito lo cumple ampliamente. Puedo suministrar cientos de noticias de diarios nacionales y provinciales que hablan sobre su persona.

    La otra politica de autopromocion hace referencia a personalidades "politicas": "Un presidente, un gobernador o incluso un alcalde de una ciudad importante son relevantes, pero no todos los políticos lo son. No es relevante para una enciclopedia una persona que amerite cargos políticos que se encuentren por debajo del cargo más alto municipal ni tampoco cada uno de los diputados o senadores de un país. Para ser estos considerados relevantes debe existir un factor que determine que van a permanecer en la historia del país."

    Para argumentar, recuerdo que Horacio Gonzalez es el presidente de la cámara de Diputados de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, que es la mas importante del país. Amerita cargos mas altos que un intendente.

    Asi mismo Wikipedia aclara "Para ser considerado un diputado o senador debe existir un factor que determine que van a permanecer en la historia". En el caso de la hisotria de la provincia de buenos aires, el presidente de la camara de diputados queda en la historia del cuerpo legislativo. Es el cargo mas alto de diputados. Como prueba que quedara en la historia se puede ir a ver el sitio oficial de la camara de diputados provincial http://www.hcdiputados-ba.gov.ar/index.php?id=presidentes donde encontraran la lista de los presidentes desde 1880 aprox hasta hoy. La mayoria de los cuerpos legislativos tiene el apartado Historia y puedo suministrar links. Asimismo si se dirigen al site oficial del partido de Ituzaingó, en la sección historia apartado "creación del partido" se menciona a Horacio Gonzalez como primer presidente del cosejo deliberante de la historia del partido http://www.miituzaingo.gov.ar/CdelPartido.html. Es decir tuvo dos cargos que perduraran en la historia de la provincia de buenos aires y en la del partido de ituzaingó Probablemente si fuese solo un diputado raso, no aplicarian estos conceptos, pero las argumentaciones anteriores considero que son de peso para que amerite una entrada. Por último como contraejemplo, la entrada del diputado "Arian Perez", que es un diputado raso y que no ha quedado aún en la historia del país, esta totalmente aceptada por wikipedia.

    Recurro a esta via luego de entender mi error (restaurar varias veces la página) e intentar dialogar con los usuarios. Lamentablemente al estar bloqueado, algunos entendieron que el pedido era por el desbloqueo, en realidad yo solicito restaurar la entrada Horacio González (diputado).

    Saludos y gracias!

    Can you help in dispute resolution for an entry in spanish wikipedia?

    Not related to en.wikipedia or wikiquette; same as previous section; have posted at User talk:190.190.96.136. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    190.190.96.136 (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Hi, briefly cause there is a lot information pretty confusing. I wrote an entry in spanish wikipedia. Some user consider it was an autopromotion page so she deleted it I restored that page many times (that was a mistake i know but reviewer does not explain me or guide me) I ask a review, some other user rejected i I read that there is some kind of assistanse for this situacion. Can you help me for an entry in a Spanish Wikipedia? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.96.136 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 December 2011[reply]

    Sorry, no, we can't help you. Each Wikipedia is autonomous, and the English-language one has no say in what goes on in the Spanish one (or vice versa). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection from two editors who are rude and degrade articles

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – discuss on article talk or open WP:RFC Gerardw (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    These two editors have a rude and threatening style which is apparent in all their posts. They have repeatedly made edits to the pages listed above which have for the most part degraded those articles. I have tried to incorporate as much as I can of their work but so much of it limits general readers' understanding of these quite complex battles. For example cutting 'infantry' from the name of a unit makes it difficult to know whether they are infantry regiments, brigades or divisions when both infantry and mounted units were involved. Both these editors have also been rude, made threats, attempted intimidation and harrassment. This has occurred on the talk pages of these articles and on my own talk page. What I need is some protection from their negative edits and rude behaviour. Rskp (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified the two editors. I do see one edit where what is obviously not vandalism being called vandalism when it appears to be a content dispute. And this edit where discussion is made about an editor. Both incidents would require a discussion, but RoslynSKP, you will have to provide diffs to show what you think the uncivil behaviour is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing further, we can't offer you any protection, but we can suggest that the editors cooperate with you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. What are 'diffs'. --Rskp (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DIFFs are the differences between two versions of a page, such as this one [20] which shows an edit I recently made to "talk page guidelines." Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide gives instructions for how to make them. Gerardw (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some links to my talk page

    Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[21] this one is threatening Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[22] Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[23] while these two are bullying[reply]

    On the Battle of Romani talk page [24] Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) is rude. [25] Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC) and totally fails to grasp my argument. [26]

    Anotherclown had contributed a couple of edits in September before Jim Sweeney's first edit of Battle of Romani when he started an edit war on 30 November 2011 making 45 edits before the article was protected on 6 December. Anotherclown had contributed a couple of edits in September before making 8 edits between 1 and 3 December 2011 to this same article.

    Jim Sweeney had never edited Battle of Magdhaba until two days after I submitted it for a GA review on 15 November 2011 and then he instigated an edit war making 49 edits which resulted in a failure.

    Jim Sweeney started a similar attack on 29 November 2011 making 28 edits on the First Battle of Gaza article, again he had never contributed before to this article.

    I don't know what has caused these two editors to target my work in this way. But their bullying and their lack of knowledge of the area has resulted in three errors being added in by them, that have been found. They have targeted the word 'infantry' in a lot of their edits wanting to take it out from these all arms engagements. But when this happens its difficult for readers to identify the units.

    I hope you can help. --Rskp (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the diffs. I'm not seeing evidence of significant incivility. Some of RoslynSKP's replies seem to convey a sense of ownership. You should try to come to consensus on the article talk page, and if that fails, consider an WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=464762849"