Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Newish user continues to abuse other editors: diffs of unacceptable behaviour as suggested
Line 181: Line 181:


:::Oh, and one more thing: I think Adrian's FAQ is both accurate and fair. There is certainly nothing uncivil about its tone. What, specifically, do you object to? [[User:Brettalan|Brettalan]] ([[User talk:Brettalan|talk]]) 07:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Oh, and one more thing: I think Adrian's FAQ is both accurate and fair. There is certainly nothing uncivil about its tone. What, specifically, do you object to? [[User:Brettalan|Brettalan]] ([[User talk:Brettalan|talk]]) 07:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

::::This is the first time I've been part of a [[Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal|Wikipedia Cabal]]... Looking forward to learning the secret handshake {{=)|7}}

::::On a more serious note, to my knowledge, this is the first negative comment that's been made about the [[Talk:Tagged/FAQ|FAQ]]; I'd have thought you'd share your concerns at [[Talk:Tagged]] before complaining at this public venue. I had tried to make it welcoming – it ends by urging everyone to be civil and to be patient and kind toward new contributors. On the Tseng diff... well... I really did burst out laughing when I read that article, and I thought anyone familiar with [[Greg Tseng]] (presumably anyone watchlisting [[Tagged]]) would appreciate the irony. It seemed harmless at the time, but if it was an inappropriate thing to say, then I apologise. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian&nbsp;'''J.'''&nbsp;Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


== Newish user continues to abuse other editors ==
== Newish user continues to abuse other editors ==

Revision as of 13:23, 12 May 2011

    Welcome to wikiquette assistance
    Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.
    • Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
    • No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.
    		 Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

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


    Active alerts

    User:Off2riorob

    Stale
     – no resolution Gerardw (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion 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:Off2riorob is being uncivil towards me by marking my AfD comments as 'SPA', [1] [2] [3]. It makes it very uncomfortable for me to take part in these discussions if Off2riorob is going to try to discredit me by falsely tagging me as a 'SPA'. After looking at his Page I see that he is in the habit of being very uncivil to other editors too. I want to have his edits marking me as a SPA in the AfD's be removed, and that his violations of Wikipedia:Civility be dealt with in a way that will stop his abusive behavior towards myself and other editors. Ougro (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to me to be a single-purpose account, having very few edits, most of them revolving around the same area, and diving straight into technical Wikipedia processes. So it's not incivil to label you as one. The swearing is a bit OTT but nothing too serious. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD process does not seem to be very technical to me. The links to take part are right on the article's page. Am I not supposed to take part in these discussions? Why are you wanting to discourage me from becoming involved? Ougro (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't at all want to discourage you. I simply said that it is very unusual for a brand-new editor to immediately launch into deletion processes, Wikiquette alerts and so on. It often indicates some prior knowledge of Wikipedia, sometimes under another username. Perhaps none of this applies to you, but you can definitely be labelled an SPA without problem in my opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 22:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a SPA good for tagging in the AFD to me and appears related to previous discussions from yesterday - add possible sockpuppet or at least meatpuppet to the list. I am not even going to honor this with additional comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob's dismissive response is just the type of behavior that I am trying to stop. To call me a 'sockpuppet' and 'meatpuppet' is just more of the same type of uncivil labeling that he uses to bully other editors. I don't understand how TreasuryTag has arrived at his comment that all of my edits are in the same area because they are not, and Off2riorob's attack against me is unjustifiable. I am not a brand-new editor. It has been nearly one year since my first edit, and I have now entered into an AfD for the first time. Don't make this about me. Does Wikipedia want to encourage Off2riorob to continue his bully and uncivil strategies? Ougro (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User came for all purposes today, did a few edits to some icehocky article and then edited four AFD articles that I have commented in, all in opposition to my opinion...hmmm, I tagged him at the AFD with a SPA template. He then edited my talkpage in defense of a returning Admin that was following me round yesterday and then he opens this Wikiquette - really - randomness coincidence is gone out of the ball park. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for tagging SPA. How 'bout i remove the SPA tags and Ougro agrees to stay off Off2riorob's talk page, and we consider this resolved? Gerardw (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob's defense is that because he was uncivil to another editor on his talk page, and then because he was then uncivil to me in the AfDs - then I (being the editor who has spoken out against his bullying) must be a sock puppet. I hope that the editors who read Off2riorob's reply will see it as the Red Herring that he is trying to create. He wants to deflect my criticism against him back onto me. His logic is so far off the mark that it would be ridiculous if he wasn't such a bully. And where does his “randomness coincidence” comment come from? I went to Off2riorob's talk page to see what this editor who was tagging me as a SPA was all about. While reading his talk page I could not miss his foul-mouthed response to another editor, and so I made a comment to point out his uncivil-ness, as every Wiki-editor should do. It is not a “random coincidence” that Off2riorob seems to be uncivil to anyone who disagrees with him. Ougro (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • - I stand by all my edits in this situation. I will not take anything back and I would do them again exactly the same in future. I laugh at this report. Its a sockpuppet meatpuppet attack against me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • mmmMMMMUUUAAAAHHHHHAAAAA!!!111!! I laugh at this forum in its entirety. I came here out of curiosity to see why it was nominated for deletion yesterday. From the sample discussion above, now I know. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha amusing indeed - although I have to say that I support this noticeboard, it has its uses and value in the dispute resolution process and I have been involved in and seen discussions here that were very beneficial - just that this is not one of them - as I have said I reject this report completely so there is nothing this level of dispute resolution can do, if anyone objects to my rejection of the report they have the option to escalate. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence that Ougro is an WP:SPA, and can't see why Off2riorob brought it up. If there is evidence of socking or meatpuppetry, WP:SPI is that way. Rd232 talk 00:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob, in what way is Ougro a Single Purpose Editor? Or do you mean they are Single and Purposeful? Looking for a date? Sorry, just being silly. Honestly though, Ougro has very few edits, and these seem to be scattered over films, celebrities from India, and ice hockey. Hardly convincing evidence of SPA, unless there is a Mighty Ducks SPA category. Why not just avoid saying SPA to future editors, move on, and enjoy life? -- Avanu (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I didn't want to make this personal, but Off2riorob isn't exactly the most courteous editor ever, and makes fallacious arguments in deletion discussions. When presented with evidence or principles to the contrary, the editor is frequently combative and is unlikely to change his mind. I mean I thought I was alone, but in addition to Ougro there are at least several other editors in the past week that he's had courtesy issues with. He also deletes comments he doesn't like off his talk page, even if it's in another user's section. That's just my two cents on the matter. I try to avoid personal conflicts. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting comments from one's own talk page is perfectly acceptable behavior, see WP:TALKO. WQA (here) is designed to address specific behaviors: if editors want to discuss the overall pattern of Off2riorob's behavior I'd recommend starting a WP:RFCC. Gerardw (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still more bullying (best term for it) from "rob", why am I not surprised? I would agree that this isn't the place to go into Off2riorob's seemingly never ending issues with his inabilities to work well with others, and I yet again suggest that Off2riorob's overall editing behavior be subject to a complete review, which I firmly believe would result in community sanctions. However it is a serious timesink to wade through his edit history, and to be blunt, I personally could not face starting a WP:RFCC both in terms of time and revulsion. Jusdafax 20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure the guy is a constructive editor, and otherwise I'd just blow it off, but I'm concerned if it isn't an isolated issue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a cursory look into the records show the issue is anything but isolated. Indeed, Off2riorob was at this very board within the past few weeks on the exact same topic, namely his nasty habit of accusing others of being an SPA (Single Purpose Account) and then defiantly blaming others when he is asked to AGF (Assume Good Faith.) Further examination reveals years of violations of Wikipedia policy which will continue until the community has finally had enough.Jusdafax 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth - the two issues are not related at all - this issue is related to the simple tagging of an account with a much used SPA template on a deletion discussion with a account that had only ever edited on four separate days over a period of more than a year. - suddenly focusing on issues out of its usual box and all of which were connected also to me and my edits. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)-[reply]
    The SPA discussion is stale, Several editors have already stated their opinion. It is inappropriate to continue to make vague comments about Off2riorob prior interactions here. Please either do a WP:RFCC or drop the WP:STICK. Gerardw (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (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.

    Crisco 1492 (Did I goof?)

    This is a request for outside input on my own conduct. Over the past two days I have spoken with User:Greenwoodma, who is a researcher at the University of Sheffield where the article under discussion (General Architecture for Text Engineering, or GATE) is developed, and works with it. Our discussion, at my talk page and User talk:Greenwoodma#General Architecture for Text Engineering dealt with possible conflict of interest and my concerns about the possible copyright violations between GATE.ac.uk's CC-BY-NC-SA copyright and our CC-BY-SA copyright. User:Greenwoodma seems to have taken offense to my latest action (requesting an outside opinion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 May 6 and tagging the article for possible copyright violation). The text in question has been rewritten, but I have a nagging question: did I misstep or violate Wikiquette? Should I have contacted an admin? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No and no, respectively. If there's any incivility, it's on the part of Greenwoodma but it's best just ignored. Gerardw (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flatterworld

    I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. Flatterworld (talk · contribs) joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and the list goes on and on.

    I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding Flatterworld (talk · contribs) in how Wikipedia envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block, if such a thing can be requested here, would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think admin action is appropriate I think it's better to go to WP:ANI. This page is really for conflict resolution, although oddly, it often has the opposite effect. Funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. I already left the message here and a notice on the guy's Talk page, so I'll just leave things the way they are and hopefully something constructive'll still come of it. It's a holiday and I don't intend to spend it at home dealing with this, but at least now I know for next time.—Biosketch (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing evidence of incivility on Flatterworld's part. WQA is intended for mutually respectful dialog about specific incidents, not requesting blocks. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Gerardw (talk · contribs). As incivility was not the issue but rather WP:AFG, I have refiled the incident at the appropriate noticeboard ([10]).—Biosketch (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Damiens.rf

    This user is on a deletionist rampage, which annoys me slightly. He's wikistalking my contribs, to which I'm indifferent but which certifies his bad faith. He's also tagging my talk page in defiance of my repeated notices and demands he not bug me while on his rampage. Will somebody kindly turn this guy off? Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's wikipedia's talk page, not yours. He's just notifying you of images for deletion. Please review instructions at top of this page for posting Wikiquette alerts. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Xiong should consider that "delete the cursed tags" and "rm another stupid fucking tag" as edit summaries are just expressing frustration but that "rm assholery" and leaving a message saying "Quit the assholery now" is a sign of an editor who needs to take a break and have a nice cup of tea - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Xiong - I can understand why you find Damiens.rf's contributions annoying. You are handling it in the wrong way. However frustrating it gets, don't be rude to people; it makes you look bad. When you get annoyed - don't post anything - take a break. If you are polite but firm, you can stand up to people like Damiens.rf and win; remember, his contributions annoy the rest of us too. If you are rude to Damiens.rf, he/she will probably win every time.
    A second tip; don't delete the notices, etc. that people place on your talk page. Occasionally clear your talk page, and put the removed comments in a sub-page called User talk:Xiong/archive1. It helps demonstrate that you show good faith, and value the comments/tags that other people put on your talk page. That can make people feel good about you. Some of the tags turn out to be useful for navigating to discussions you might want to keep an eye on or contribute to. If somebody is bugging you, it will show up clearly on your talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry; I just don't agree with any of that. I want to be left in peace. I especially don't care about any semantic juggling. I'm highly annoyed. Please, somebody switch this off at the source. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemarlin

    An IP (67.127.100.144 (talk · contribs)) needed help because that User:Orangemarlin wasn't being civil with him and he wasn't conforming with WP:BITE 1. After, he asked me to start an WQA alert2. I warned User:OrangeMarlin about WP:BITE3. After, he said that he does not care about that4. I said that I was going to start a WQA5. It is here. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I put very little stock into the complaints of "new" editors who pop up into some of the project's most hot-button topic areas, immediately taking up a side of the debate, then head to the AN/Is, WQAs, and assorted wiki-alphabet enforcement boards like it is old hat. I have zero involvement in the pseudoscience area, but I have seen this happen quite often in Israel-Palestine and the Obama areas. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been using Wikipedia as a source of information for well over a year but I never got the nerve to make an actual edit or comment until last week. I really had a layman's knowledge of acupuncture and was reading the entry merely out of intellectual curiosity. I made a small aesthetic fix to the page and, other than that, found it to be fairly well-written article; that is except for one portion: the lede. I didn't realize is was a hot-button area though I did see a lot of personal attacks flying about. I tried to steer clear of those when I made my first contributions to a discussion ever. I discussed only the actual words we were writing and held firm to my belief that a good lede should have better flow and be more concise than what was in place. At no point did I suggest that I am pro-acupuncture nor pro-pseudoscience. I am neither. I really don't have an opinion on acupuncture, but if anything, after reading the entire article, I'd say I'm more of a disbeliever now. I really can't believe that I've fallen into this suck-hole where I am dealing with blatant personal attacks rather than bettering the writing of the article entry. But more than that, I can't believe the fire and venom spewed by OrangeMarlin at both me and the good samaritan editors who were simply giving me (an admitted noob) a good start at Wikipedia. I'm a grown-up and can ignore OrangeMarlin's petty name-calling rather easily but I just think this was a terrible "welcome" to Wikipedia and I don't think OrangeMarlin's reprehensible behaviour should be tolerated in a place where professionals come to volunteer our time.67.127.100.144 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of OM being incivil the IP editor. Gerardw (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP's very first edits were to an article that had just been unprotected from a borderline revert/edit-war. It is hardly surprising OM thought it necessary to comment on it, though some editors might have chosen more cautious wording. While ebe123 seems to be a well intentioned respondent to {{helpme}}, the use of wp:Twinkle to troutslap a warning template on an established editor is a gross misapplication of both those tools which must be nipped in the bud. In fact, there should probably be technical mechanisms in TW to prevent it happening inadvertently. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Neither WP:DTR nor WP:TR are policy. In fact, I recently saw a talk page where the regular was offended by a personal statement and told the poster they should have used a template. Gerardw (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, the incivility is not a matter worthy of invoking WP:BITE and any new editor seeing the massive discussion levels about the article ought reasonably conclude that conflict exists on the article. I suggest a cup of tea is all the IP needs at this point. Collect (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any of you know what you are talking about. I also don't think this needs to be at WGA given that it is already being discussed on OM's talk page. Prodego talk 22:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying Tarc is mistaken? Are you saying either WP:DTR or WP:TR is policy? Gerardw (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. [11] - Here OrangeMarlin accuses me of edit warring. Hard to believe since it was my second edit ever on Wikipedia (and my first was of little substance, just aesthetics). Please note that I had been discussing my changes fully and even stated that I suspected my edit would be undone. [12]

    2. [13] - On his talk page, I discussed my grievance with his edit summary comment. I thought I was extending a olive branch and encouraging him to discuss the substance of the article rather than continuing to get mired down in the personal squabble he and other editors had been engaged in. OrangeMarlin threw the olive branch back in my face by mischaracterizing it as a discussion about article content and shouting that he would ignore my comment. Then he deleted it.

    3. [14] - I told him that it was not an issue to be discussed on the article talk page as it was more of a personal nature. I asked him not to mischaracterize me nor my point of view. Again he threw it back in my face: "Go Away NOW".

    4. Next, I asked for help on how to deal with this editor. You can read that on my talk page [15]. There was mention of opening up an WQA on my behalf, but I didn't think that was warranted. The two editors helping me get started also dropped what I thought was a polite note/reminder to OrangeMarlin. OrangeMarlin did not see it that way. [16] and [17]. That second one was what really bothered me. He called me a "Pro Acupuncture POV pushing IP" and that he doesn't have patience for me. I believe I have illustrated that I am not Pro Acupuncture nor was I POV pushing. If OrangeMarlin was actually participating in the Acupuncture talk page, he would recognize this.

    5. [18] - Next when more experienced editors pointed out to him that he shouldn't be treating me that way, OrangeMarlin disagreed and continued to perpetuate the defamatory characterization that I have a pseudoscientific POV. I do not and I defy him to prove otherwise by any of my actions or statements.

    6. [19] - OrangeMarlin then went to the talk page of the editor trying to help me wade through this and was unforgivably rude. "I don't give one flying fucking shit about biting or not biting editors" and then accuses me of spamming 12 oncology articles. Maybe he is confusing me with someone else here. The only article I've ever edited was acupuncture and that has nothing to do with oncology.

    I am not here to get OrangeMarlin in trouble or anything. I would just like to see his behaviour put in check. Again, I am taking time out of my day (as I suspect we all are) to help improve Wikipedia. I don't appreciate this guy jumping down my neck, making me feel unwelcome before I get a chance to really show what I can do here. It is astounding if this kind of behaviour is tolerated.67.127.100.144 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He asked you several times to discuss the article on the article talk page, not on his talk page. Article discussions belong on article talk pages in most cases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [20] - That's just it. I wasn't discussing the article on his talk page. Please read for yourself. I was discussing his behaviour toward me. I am new, but I've read the talk page guidelines. What I wrote to him is exactly the kind of discussion that doesn't belong on article talk pages but rather user talk pages. At least that's how I understand the guidelines.67.127.100.144 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest you're playing the victim just a little too hard? That perhaps sounds harsher than intended, but there's a time to let things go rather than pressing on and on and on and on, which is disruptive in its own way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gnangarra

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – Gerardw (talk)

    I created my account three days ago, and I have been in a dispute with another user. This Gnangarra person came along and made an uncivil and rude warning. See WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL To view the incident go to: User talk:Timbracks13. I'm happy to take advice but I was really surprised by the way he jumped bown my neck and made me feel unwelcome. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice is:
    • accept Gnangarra's advice.
    • stay off Timeshift9's user and talk pages.
    • every community has its norms and practices. Your account is 4 days old and I'm seeing more WP:DRAMA than editors with years of experience. Slow down and observe how things are done. Gerardw (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I've blocked Timbracks13 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, of which this seems to have been part. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Users: Ucanlookitup, Adrian J. Hunter, Brettalan

    I believe these three editors have formed a Cabal. I cannot get anywhere with edits on the article for Tagged and it has become really frustrating, the tone in which my edits are received has gotten increasingly negative. I am hoping to resolve this dispute by getting some outside assistance or possibly advice on how to move forward with the article. Thank you.

    Ucanlookitup Assumes bad faith of every single editor that has tried to help in last 6 months or more. Aggressively reverts any edits or flags to the article, which are clearly not vandalism. Makes snarky comments like "it don't work that way" and will revert flags without discussion [21] Uses vaguely threatening language calling my comments or edits an edit war and says things like "let's call for protection" [22].This editor fails to recognize his own bias and has not worked towards agreement.

    Adrian J. Hunter Has made inappropriate comments about the subject matter, which makes me question objectivity. For example, an FAQ was created on the talk page [23] that is unwelcoming and overwhelmingly negative way to summarize. Have also noticed that the comments are increasingly negative, like with these edits: "btw it's hilarious that the Inc article complains about poor Tseng getting bombarded by emails" [24]

    Brettalan Has reverted my edits at least half a dozen times. Comments on edits I have performed to similar articles like Facebook : "Also, again, the only reason Facebook doesn't have controversies in the lead is because YOU removed them."[25] This user does not welcome new input and I find it intimidating to be followed to other articles. Uses a very rude and aggressive tone with anyone who tries to make changes. [26] NCSS (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing significant incivility. Emphatic dialog is not incivil. Gerardw (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NCSS, I am sorry you feel that way. You and a handful of other users have repeatedly tried to violate Wikipedia policy. I have repeatedly, patiently explained the relevant policies to you, and you and the others have continued to make the same changes and continued to make the same arguments that have already been fully addressed. It was only after my arguments were repeatedly ignored, and after you and others made rather harsh allegations against me and others and then refused to explain or retract those allegations, than I showed any signs of frustration.
    I am particularly perplexed by your complaint about being "followed to other articles". YOU specifically brought up the other articles about social networking sites as a reason to change the content of this one. Did you expect me not to look at the articles that you were referring to? I even made a point of refraining from getting involved in the discussion on the Facebook article, precisely so you wouldn't feel that I was making it a personal issue, but evidently I was also supposed to take your argument at face value. I don't see why I should. Why should you be able to remove controversies from the lead of one article, and then use the fact that that article doesn't have controversies in the lead as a reason to remove controversies from the lead of another article on the basis of "fairness"? If you didn't want to be "followed" to the other article, you shouldn't have brought it up!
    I would also point out that you and the other editors who are trying to make changes have been asked whether you have any conflict of interest, since Tagged has been known to actively try to influence its coverage here, and you have refused to answer. I think we've been rather civil in not pressing that issue.
    The bottom line is that your edits are getting nowhere because they violate Wikipedia policy. It is Wikipedia policy to include notable controversies in the lead of articles. You've been repeatedly shown that the controversy in question was one of the most widely covered pieces of information about the company, which establishes it as notable. Again, I'm sorry that you feel that those of us who are enforcing that policy are forming a "cabal", but there's really nothing more to it than that this is our understanding of the policy, and no one has addressed our explanations in any substantive way. I think anyone who looks at the matter objectively will see that I've been quite patient and that if anyone is being uncivil, it is you and the other users who are throwing around accusations such as "cabal", "tendentious editing", and "stifling debate" without providing any basis for those charges. Brettalan (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and one more thing: I think Adrian's FAQ is both accurate and fair. There is certainly nothing uncivil about its tone. What, specifically, do you object to? Brettalan (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time I've been part of a Wikipedia Cabal... Looking forward to learning the secret handshake
    On a more serious note, to my knowledge, this is the first negative comment that's been made about the FAQ; I'd have thought you'd share your concerns at Talk:Tagged before complaining at this public venue. I had tried to make it welcoming – it ends by urging everyone to be civil and to be patient and kind toward new contributors. On the Tseng diff... well... I really did burst out laughing when I read that article, and I thought anyone familiar with Greg Tseng (presumably anyone watchlisting Tagged) would appreciate the irony. It seemed harmless at the time, but if it was an inappropriate thing to say, then I apologise. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Newish user continues to abuse other editors

    Andrewedwardjudd is a newish user (~1 month, ~500 edits) who has been asked many times to be polite. He has been given leeway as a new user, but a month later, he continues to abuse other editors. I just noticed these two latest personal attacks. [27], [28]. Could someone explain to him that this behaviour is not acceptable? Many thanks. --LK (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrewedwardjudd, comments about other editors are not helpful. Please focus your discussion on the content at hand. The common WP colloquialism is comment on the content not on the contributor. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor BigK HeX who refuses to discuss anything with me and who earlier accused me of being another editor, accused me of obfuscating when he was muddled up about a simple issue. Lawrencekhoo the editor who has started this alert then deleted my comment referring to Bigk's 'silly behaviour', while failing to draw attention to the abuse i got from Bigk.
    Lawrencekhoo and Bigk Hex tend to state a strong opinion as fact, focus on wikilawyering and will not discuss the issues other than making derisory comments about the other editors abilities to read or have the knowledge they have, and then distort the record to abuse their victims attempting to draw attention to their errors created by their strong opinions. They are fond of dismissing citations as fringe no matter how important the source. These two also appear to work in concert with other editors who have less objectionable impact on editorsAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]
    Other editor's behavior doesn't change the standards or expectations. Per WP:TPG, personal attacks on other editors may be removed from talk pages. If you have WP:DIFFs of specific attacks by BigK or LK, you could post them and we'll evaluate the situation. Gerardw (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lawrencekhoo then deleted this comment and began this alert.

    Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=428750476"