Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

Cyclopia

• Cyclopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DMSBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:EAR (edit | [[Talk:WP:EAR|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I went to ask a question [[1]] regarding deleting the photos on the ejaculation article as being from unreliable source, a porn site. It is now unclear that they were on that porn site before they came into wiki-commons. Cyclopia stalked me to the page where I was asking the question, set up a link to my question on the ejaculation page. He then proceded to undermine me as he had been doing on the article talk page, by telling others not to listen to me, and refering to me as lonely and attention seeking, in reference to my attempts at advancing a new consensus. He also claims I am "forum shopping" something ARBCOM firmly rejected as an accusation against me when I filed with them (at that time I had not taken the time to study all of the info about ARBCOM before filing and I thought they dealt with content, not just conduct). I have admittedly somewhat persistently argued for removal of certain content on the ejaculation article, primarily the four-plate photos there. I have been met with very little graciousness from Cyclopia in the course of the discussion in which he has frequently refered to me as trolling for continuing to press for a new consensus. I do repeat the same reasons at times, as I thought that was how to keep the issue from fading and becuase they are IMO good reasons, and I feel that with greater support such reasons could advance a new consensus, and there is currently at best a very weak consensus there. one other editor whom I regard as astute in his comments on the page (User:Bdell555) said on the talk page there was just a status quo on the images. Cyclopia has misrepresented the strength of the consensus calling it firm when the closing editor of the last RFC held on the issue said that "he would hestitate to say there was a consensus" and felt wider input was necessary. This is another reason I remain within the discusion as the strength of any consensus is often over-stated. There have been a few further objections since then, but I have not bothered to set up an RFC on it again as yet. My difficulty with Cyclopia is that he insists there is a consensus firmer than it is, he tells others not to listen to me, and he has started to stalk me, and undermine me when I seek further advice about grounds for deletion of the aforementioned images. DMSBel (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had actually explained why you thought the source was unreliable when you asked the question at EA/R, rather than asking "can such content be deleted as unreliable" it might have made things simpler. Frankly though, I think it is apparent that this question about sourcing was just being used as an excuse to raise the issue of whether the article need include such images. If you wish to discuss article content, this isn't the way to go about it. I'll not comment about what has occurred between Cyclopia and you, as I've not been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I did state so very early on. Are you saying I am not allowed to check grounds on which an image can be deleted? If there are grounds an experienced editor should state them freely when asked for assistance. Sorry That is not meant to sound like you withheld anything, but there is more than one possible ground for deletion .There have been other editors when I asked about the images who have said to me unreliable source perhaps. Thats why I asked. Am I not allowed to ask these questions? I have been discussing it on an off for months with many other editors agreeing over that time with deletion. There is nothing complicated here, I was stalked to the page and undermined by Cyclopia. What's complicated, I had presented my reasons before cyclopia joined about why I thought it was unreliable. DMSBel (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you could have avoided a lot of drama if you had told Cyclopia you were going to bring this to a noticeboard (I'd actually expect it if I were in a discussion with you). If you had, he User:Nigelj wouldn't have thought you tried to forum-shop. From the article talk history it seems that you two have been discussing this for some months now, so I don't think trying to get the photo deleted was a clever move, nor was trying it without saying so on the ejaculation-talk. Our contributions are out there in the open, and as long as it's relvant to the discussion two editors are having I wouldn't call checking the contribs stalking (or did Cyclopia start editing other articles you've been working on? that might be stalking, depending on how he edits those pages). I don't really think this is a wikiquette issue, perhaps you should try getting a third opinion or start a new request for comment. --Six words (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told Cyclopia, as soon as feasibily possible, comments started coming in here quite early. I could not post a link till it was set up. Any more comments inserted inbetween existing ones may get missed as yours nearly did here. Please post at the end as I dont want to have to re-scan the whole thread all the time. Whether you think trying to get the photo deleted was a "clever move" is absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. "Without saying it on the ejaculation talk page" - oh please, I have said it over and over, The photos should go. There was no attempt being made to delete it without mentioning it on the talk page, I would have presented that as a ground for deletion if an experienced editor had told me it was on the page. I did not realise there was a policy that I had to link to a question I was asking relevant to the page, somewhere else on wikipedia. You are not even asking questions of me, you are attributing to me what you think are my motives as though they are in fact my motives. DMSBel (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep threaded discussions together, so I'll answer here and take the risk that you won't read this. With “bringing it to a noticeboard” I wasn't refering to the wikiquette alert, I was talking about your question at WP:EAR, and judging from your initial complaint (you said Cyclopia was stalking you because he commented there) you didn't plan on telling him you had posted a request there. If you check the timeline you'll also find that I didn't bring up anything that was answered already. You came here for comments, you got comments. While you're free to ignore them you cannot tell me what to bring up and what not. --Six words (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry misunderstood there about were you meant. thanks for clarifying. I think it was becuase you said "bring this". That is why I thought you had asked a question I had already answered. Apologies. (I have taken that out but can't remember at moment how to do strikethough). Back to the linking from ejaculation to editor assistance. As I said I was not aware of the policy about linking when asking a question elsewhere (but related to that page). No the reason I called it stalking which Cyclopia has now told me he was not doing was because of the tone of his post, after my question. If he had just simply linked I would not have thought of him as stalking, I'd have wondered about the link because I did not know about that policy of linking to assistance questions related to the article. I apologise for any slip-up there, but I can assure you it was not done intentionally. Any deletion reason would have been posted back to the thread. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You were not stalked to the page. Anyone can check your user contributions for any reason whatsoever. It's a public display of all of your edits. As it was, you were forum shopping, which is against Wikipedia policy. Cyclopedia did the correct thing and notified involved users via the talk page for ejaculation. You may be uncomfortable with that, but that does not mean it is stalking, nor does that mean they have done anything wrong. While I think Cyclopedia could probably be a bit more calm and less abrasive when dealing with you, your misunderstanding of many policies on Wikipedia and continued attempts to push your own POV can make their reaction a bit more understandable. --13² 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry who is authorised to respond here? Outside of me and and Cyclopia. I expected Admin who are not involved, or have any POV. 13 sqrd is an involved editor. Is it just anyone?DMSBel (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Every editor is allowed to respond, even your opponent(s). --Six words (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I know Cyclopia can, I sent him a message. Ok I leave it open till someone closes it.

To 13² - I was not "Forum Shopping" which is daft, for an RFC would serve me better if I wanted more people to join in. I went there solely to find out about whether porn websites are considered unreliable as a source. DMSBel (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your actions can be seen as forum shopping. You ask the same kind of questions at different forums when previous discussions did not support you. Then when the new discussion is linked from the page in question you object to that. This can make it look like you don't what people who have been involved in the past to be involved in the new discussion. This might not have been your intention that is how it looks to me. ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What they can be seen as and what they are are two totally different things. I know why I went there, to ask a question. Cyclopia should remember from the ARBCOM that they affirmed my reasons (albeit I misunderstood ARBCOMs purpose) as genuine, that was a previous occasion he tried to pin "forum shopping" on me, thats if he read what they all said. This is not about me!!! Let Cyclopia file one on me if he wants i'll answer there. Unbelievable do you guys think you can just turn round my own complaint on me and no-one notice. If anyone has complaint file it and i'll answer it!!!!!!! DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You start a thread about Cyclopia. Did you think no one would than check your contributions out as well? They are quite relevant to the topic at hand. Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You should read over the section titled "there is no "immunity" for reporters" at WP:SHOT. Your edits aren't immune to scrutiny just because you're reporting someone else (and I should know; I ended up in a similar situation a few years ago). --13² 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you foot is better now. I think I have remained as civil as reasonably can be expected in this dispute, and correctly interpreted policy. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No this isn't about you it is about your complaint. Part of your complaint was that you were accused of forum shopping and I tried to explain how someone might interpret your actions as forum shopping. I don't think anything has been done that requires anyone to be reported for anything. ~~ GB fan ~~ 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered that. Twice now. Anything else to ask? I will be asking ARBCOM to check on this too, if necessary. DMSBel (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is the last step when everything else has failed - and they (just as the volunteers answering here) will also review your conduct. I'd advise you not to go to ArbCom. --Six words (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)when I say that I don't mean to say “never go to ArbCom”, but I doubt it's a good idea in this case and it's definitely a bad idea as long as you haven't tried everything else first.

Ok lets see how this goes. I have already answered the same question twice, does Cyclopia have to put in an appearance at any time?DMSBel (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have to. If you want him to comment here, you could (politely) ask him to do so on his talk. --Six words (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, did that as soon as I could after posting my alert. DMSBel (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be an admin, and you can take it from me that admins have no privileged role in these discussions. They are only empowered to carry out the communities consensus. No, Cyclopedia is free to comment here, or to refrain from commenting. And we are free to draw our conclusions in either case. And while you can certainly take this to ArbCom, I second Six words. The case would almost certainly be rejected as a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks helps to know how this works, I'd have thought a facilator would have been involved, but anyway. If we try to understand each other it should get sorted fairly quickly. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to prempt either their accepting of it or any ruling they would take. Perhaps we can resolve the matter sooner. DMSBel (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessively rude behavior and personal attacks by User:Exxess

• Exxess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:Piotrus (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Piotrus|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While User:Exxess deleted their grossly offensive commentary, per this diff here, that does not excuse their conduct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all about a single AfD discussion [2]. Ignore and forget. Biophys (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone can't deal with people not agreeing they ought not edit in a venue where there is no (by design) ownership of content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Xebulon

• Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uncivil comment [3] Other examples of uncivil behaviour: [4], [5] I think somebody must stop it. Quantum666 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think somebody should finally stop Quantum666 who has a vast record of abuses for which he was punshed multiple times already. This awkward and baseless appeal by Quantum666 shows that he is unfit to edit Wikipedia. Please block Quantum666 for 30 days as stipulated by Wiki rules. Xebulon (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The user Xebulon is obviously edit warring. Along with continuous edit-warring, the user never stops to make incivil comments. When he himself seems to be a sock or at the very least a meatpuppet of one of the banned users, he continues to accuse other editors. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all user Xebulon hasn't made any uncivil comment. Second, why shouldn't he? When user Quantum666 and Tuscumbia continue to vandalize Armenia-related articles. For example, user Quantum666 wrote, he(Garegin Njdeh) seizure of Western Armenia from Turkey and its unification with Soviet Armenia in the place of, the liberation of Western Armenia from Turkish occupation and its unification with Soviet Armenia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.43.163 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The second and third diff both show a lack of civility.

This cultural edit-warring needs to stop. I'll see if I can get someone more experienced to look into it. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

At an article talk page, "comment on content, not on the contributor". If an editor can't make their comment without referring to another editor, they need to consider whether they should be making it at all. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the edit-warring continues, I suggest bringing it up at WP:ANI to get advise from editors experienced with cultural disputes. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr. Persi's uncivil behaviour

• Dr. Persi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uncivil behaviour of Dr.Pesi in using "asfghanestan" instead of "Afghanistan" in his talk page on 10 January 2011.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artacoana (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2011

Looks like a typo to me. Trivial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well putting it between quotation marks. Do you still believe it's a typo or intentional ? --Artacoana (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some edit diffs? I'm just not seeing how this is a wikiquette issue and I tend to agree with Andy that it appears to be an issue of typos. Also, you need to alert the user to this notice. --13² 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typo to me given the rest of the edit, which repeats the typo. Dr Persi also has a typo in 'father'. I'll notify him. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism and homophobia

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

Personal attacks and unacceptable behavior, after my participation in the article White Argentine.

First, beyond user's hostility, left on my talk page 2 january 2011 (you simply don't deserve any good); he goes on to say racist comments, sayin: If you were an African-American or so, I would understand your actions, but being yourself a White European makes your attitude towards the Whites living in the Americas more and more un-understandable. Although seemingly harmless comment, saying that if "I am African American" is understandable my animosity against white. What it means? This is a racial bias and unacceptable behavior, used to discredit the position of a user.

• [6]

and after, this message made by one IP that edits the article White Argentine. Is some one who know I am Italian, because he translated this message to Italian. He also read the discussion, because he know I am an Antropologist. Even if he makes a couple of orthography errors. (sonno = sleep / sono = are)

• [7]
• [8] (All Italian Antropologist are Homosexual)

--GiovBag (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify the person you are reporting. I have now done so. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning my comment on GiovBag's talk page, I sustain my thinking on the matter. If I have violated some WP's policy, do what you consider it is proper to do in such a case. On the vandalism on both his user and talk pages, I think it is quite inadeccuate but I don't know who might have done it. He probably annoyed someone else with his edits in some of the articles on White people.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This comment is entirely unacceptable, not to say stupid. This is not a war between races, and suggesting a racial motivation, even in the subjunctive, reveals a very peculiar world view. I strongly suggest to refrain from such comments in the future. I also strongly suggest you stop stereotyping people based on their potential "race" or ethnicity, although that, of course, is up to you. Finally, as for not wishing somebody well, if you don't want to, don't do it. Making a big production out of it in uncivil and childish. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. On the IP, there's not enough here to just assume the IP is the same editor. I have warned the IP separately. If it stops - fine. If it carries on - it can be blocked. If it seems appropriate, checkuser can be sought. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Incivil comments by Ashot Arzumanyan

• Ashot Arzumanyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Aram-van (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Aram-van|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The User:Ashot Arzumanyan has to be warned against incivility. Please see his comment here [9]: Regardless of who your opponent is and how stupid his arguments are, please try to be as much polite as possible. This will be a pure benefit to your argumentation. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised to see this message here without preliminary notice and discussion. Whatsoever, is it uncivil to call for politeness regardless of anything?? I do not think so, but am open for reasonable criticism (if it is at all appropriate in this case). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In the thread above, we have an admin calling a specific editor's comment "stupid": Ashot's comment was very generic and not incivil. Calling a specific editor "stupid" would be incivil, but the "bulk" of his message is good advice, really. I think this is a bit of an "overreaction" to file a WQA based on the one comment. Are there other "examples" of "incivility"? Because this diff is not an example of it. Doc talk 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashot, discussion on what? About you being incivil? Do we have to discuss anything so that you understand you're not supposed to be incivil? Will you not be civil without discussion? I did give you a notice

Doc9871, so you're saying calling someone stupid is admissible in Wikipedia? Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, calling someone stupid is not "admissible". Generically calling any potential editors' edits "stupid" is not incivil. I don't see him addressing anyone in particular with that comment - do you? Doc talk 16:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc, his comments are related to me because of the AN report I had filed. The user Aram-van has been edit-warring and is a party to an SPI. He's been adding his comments on talk pages questioning my judgement, etc. Hence, the "advice" of Ashot Arzumanyan on his talk page in reference to me. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why taking upon yourself? Why wouldn't you ask me first? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be twisting the issue, Ashot. We both know it was addressed to me. Why else would you ask for "preliminary notice" and accept "reasonable criticism"? I'm not asking anyone to ban you or anything. I just think you should be warned so that next time you comment about editors, you assume good faith. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ban me? or anything? Hmm... My comment was a pure good faith assumption towards Aram-van. I don't see any room for you in there. You have really overreacted. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I would ask administrators to ban you at a different board if the comment was severe enough. This section is just to get you warned, not banned. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's going to happen. You two seem to have quite a thing going at the Talk:Heyvali (village) page. You both make comments that could be "construed" as "incivil". Tuscumbia, with this response one could easily construe you were referring to Ashot and that his responses routinely "make no sense". That's not very nice, now is it? Running to WQA for the diff you cite is not warranted, IMHO. Keep working out your issues as you have been, and if there's a pattern of incivility you can demonstrate, then a WQA is worth filing. Doc talk 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you want to say by posting that diff. Isn't it obvious what it refers to? And no, Ashot Arzumanyan's argument does not make sense, but it's not stupid. It's just his opinion. I never call anyone stupid in Wikipedia because unlike him I respect all editors regardless of their edits. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He did not call you "stupid". You can read it anyway you want, but it's not there. To say your argument is stupid is no worse than you just now saying he doesn't respect other editors (without evidence). Tell you what: you don't want to listen to my take on it, so I'll just let others comment here. Don't be surprised if what I'm saying rings true, though. I see no reason to warn this editor for incivility based on the diff you provided. Period. Doc talk 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc, look. He was incivil (in my opinion) and I opted to go through mediator to warn him so that he does not make the same kind of mistake again. Period. I never asked to ban or block him. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@Tuscumbia - "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough...". This isn't even remotely close. Carefully read that policy, as well as WP:AGF. Doc talk 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871.

Tuscumbia, please take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. WP:CIVIL states, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgmental, and do not respond in kind. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue."

This is more of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-related disputing like Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivil_comments_by_Xebulon above. The large-scale, cultural dispute needs to be taken to ANI where editors experienced with cultural-disputes can decide what to do. I'm sure some Arbcom restrictions can be applied. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, trust me, there was nothing retaliatory on my part. I just wanted for him to understand that calling anyone's comments "stupid" is not nice. That's all. Whether he does or not, it's really up to him. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why there are talk pages... I am really sorry for you took it upon yourself. If you simply have a look at that notice in a week or so with a fresh eye, you would probably notice that there is nothing to point out that you should take it upon yourself. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand and that we're on the same page. Resolved. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are things done like that, man? As far as I read over, it is you who was not understanding the matter. Probably saying you are sorry for taking our time would be more civil way to close this discussion. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not sorry at all. That's why this board exists. You commented on "stupidity" of an editor, referring to me, but maybe not. And as mentioned above, I pursued this report to have a mediator make a warning. But I'm not insisting that you meant what you meant. It's totally dependent on an editor's conscience. I said I am glad you understand in reference to understanding that kind of remarks about an editor are not nice. Not sure what you're trying to do here now. It's been enough of exchange on this page. Are we all clear? Tuscumbia (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Would be great if you reread this discussion and come out with more understanding of what is what. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)