Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts 

Image:Gtk-dialog-info.svg
This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.
For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page.
Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.
Shortcut:
WP:WQA
Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Article talk pages
Editor assistance
Third opinion
Requests for comment
Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal
Mediation Committee
Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee
Requests for arbitration
Completed requests
Arbitration clarifications
Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions
General sanctions
Mentorship

Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate. That's usually the best solution for everyone involved. If problems continue, then there are further options as described in this dispute resolution process link and the info-box to the right. For more information, click any of those links, or start with this article: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

IMPORTANT: Read the instructions before posting your alert. Review the section titled Procedure for this page, immediately following the table of contents below.

Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out, and in particular if you have been helped by this page, please return the favor by offering your advice on other incident reports. That's not a requirement for posting your report, but it's a good idea, and your help would be much appreciated. Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures. Wikiquette in a way is the basis of what allows the community to work smoothly together, so those are valuable skills to develop for those who like to edit Wikipedia. Thanks!



Wikiquette alerts archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Contents


Are you in the right place?

Please keep in mind that WQA is a non-binding, informal forum.

What WQA can do:

What WQA CANNOT do:

Procedure for this page

Instructions for users posting alerts

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers here are volunteers. It may take some time to receive a response. If the problem is continuing and you have not received any results from your posting here, return to this page and post an update to your original statement of the problem.

If you have not received help and the problem becomes urgent or is escalating, refer to the list above and post your report to one of the Administrator Notice boards instead. In that case, please edit your post on this page to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

Instructions for editors responding to alerts

All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on this page. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated.

To help with this page, place it on your watchlist so you can see when new alerts are posted. Or you quickly scan the page for items here that are either marked with the WQA "Work in progress" message-box or have no status indicator at all. If an alert does not have any kind of response yet, it is open and needs attention.

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome(Optional comment and/or signature)

Closing the reports:

Resolved. (Optional comment and/or signature)


Stuck. (Optional comment and/or signature)


Stale. (Optional comment and/or signature)
Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere(Optional comment and/or signature)

The five templates may optionally include your signature and additional summary comments by including them after a pipe, for example, {{resolved|User has been reminded about [[WP:NPA]] ~~~~}}, or {{stuck|Referred to [[WP:ANI]].}} This automatically formats the included text as small text displayed next to the template. For detailed instructions on using the templates, click any of the template name links above. Please note that using a timestamped signature with one of these templates will delay the automatic bot archival of that alert to 14 days from when you sign the template.

Archiving alerts

Reports are considered closed and automatically archived by bot (whether tagged or not using any of the templates described above) one week after the last timestamped signature in the discussion. Reports marked resolved, stuck, or NWQA (as above) may be manually archived sooner than this. Links to the archive pages can be found in the Archive Box next to the Table of Contents above.


Active alerts

User:Pwnage8

This user blankly reverted all my changes, that I, with some effort, had put into the Chris Pronger and National Hockey League rivalries articles. Among my changes were bypassing some redirects, unlinking dates, and merging identical references. His position - right or wrong - was that "August 3, [[2005-06 NHL season|2005]]" would be an appropriate link that should be kept. (And for that reason he reverted all my changes blankly.) My position - right or wrong - is that a calendar date obviously refers to a calendar year, not a season or a draft. Maybe this isn't the right place to resolve this dispute.

But what I object to is that he reverted all my changes, instead of - as I suggested on his talkpage - posting a (reasonably) polite message on my talkpage, explaining what he didn't feel was correct. An alternative would be that he himself re-add the specific changes that he didn't agree on. Instead he described my edits as "mistakes" and "unconstructive", and labeled me a "mindless busybody".

LarRan (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks? and notify the user of this alert as required. --neon white talk 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This is his first revert of my edit to the "Chris Pronger" article: [1]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, but his revert has now been reverted by Orlandkurtenbach, and that version is the current one at present.
This is his first revert of my edit to the "National Hockey League rivalries" article: [2]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, and that version is the current one at present, since I don't want to engage in edit warring.
The invectives can be found on my talkpage, "Unlinking dates" section, second part. Here's the edit that added them: [3]
I have notified him now. Missed that.
LarRan (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I have not looked at the diff's related to article content: we cannot deal with that here, only incivility. I've read the entire page that you linked to related to incivility, and I have significant trouble finding what you call "invectives". The edit that you kindly provided the diff for includes the phrases "please don't engage in mindless busybodyism and ignore the details. It's up to you to go that extra mile and make the constructive change". Based on your response, I believe that this is the portion you're concerned about. Truly, this is borderline: he didn't call you "a mindless busybody", he suggestion you don't engage in "mindless busybodyism". In fact, he then went on to suggest what would make your editing better. Feel free to correct me or enhance my understanding. -t BMW c- 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think it is useful, and would add to the article, to include a link to the seasons in the Chris Pronger article, the fact that they are dates does not make it absolutely necessary. This is why I have decided not to revert on that article again. However, the National Hockey League rivalries article uses season links to establish greater context, and should not be removed. I'm glad that LarRan has not reverted me there, and I would ask him to agree to keep the season links in that article. I don't think it should be up to me to fix the problems caused by his edits. Why did I choose to revert all his changes? As I said, I do not think I should have been the one to fix the problems caused by his changes, because I had other articles to get to in my watchlist, and because his other changes were negligible, as the targets redirect to the articles. Redirects are something I'm anal about, but in this particular case I don't think either version would be a substantial improvement for the article, and him removing the season links diminishes the quality of the article. Since he is making the changes, he should make them good changes, not drive by script-type. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have an obligation to at least keep or reinsert useful edits. If it was worth your time to visit and full-revert, it's worth your time to do a little help to the article. -t BMW c- 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note, that wikiquette alerts are not the place to continue a content dispute, do so on the relevant talk page. --neon white talk 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been worse behaviour than Pwnage8's, but there seems to be a pattern of him viewing himself as "presiding" over other editors' contributions, reverting others' edits at will with the comment "try again" if he does not approve of them. It (the attitude) can be seen both in his remarks on my talkpage, and on the edit summaries of his reverts. Also, other editors have recently complained on his talkpage about edit warring on dates, so this is clearly not a one-off.

Regarding his reason for full-reverts (he's got "other articles to tend to"), I think I value my time as precious as I guess he is valuing his, so that argument is invalid.

Finally, disguising invectives (albeit rather mild ones), in hypothetical expressions does not make them anything other than invectives. If that were the case, one could easily get away with "don't do this, or you're an idiot".

LarRan (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if there's such a "pattern" it wouldn't be too hard to provide extensive diffs? --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that some of them have recently been added to your talkpage. LarRan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Uh, here? You seem to be reverting LarRan, replacing dates with old-style wiki-linked dates and changing proper-case ("Where they met in playoffs") to camel-case ("Where They Met In Playoffs").
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's already been discussed here, and that's one diff. LarRan alleges that there is a "pattern" of this happening everywhere. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"not again" and "not again" (reverting removal of MySpace URLs). "why remove them?" (reverting removal of full-stops (periods) in an initialism). " lmao.. i'm sure it does. just about every article that isn't a GA does, but we don't see mass taggings of them" (removing a refimprove tag). "i can't believe someone tagged/removed this, considering all the ridiculous claims in this article" (reinserting an uncited claim). "how is this not notable? how are any of the other unsourced claims notable?" (...and again).
I don't know if I would agree with LarRan that there's a "pattern", but there are in a very short period a number of unhelpful edit summaries accompanying questionable reverts and edits. In particular, re-adding an uncited claim is bizarre - uncited claims can be removed at any time, and re-adding them is unhelpful. Reverting bot-edits that are consistent with MoS are unhelpful. Reverting the removal of MySpace links could be OK, but not with "not again" as an edit summary.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one: [4]. A pattern does not necessarily mean that all edits "everywhere" are unhelpful, or accompanied by questionnable edit summaries. Regular occurrences are enough to establish a pattern. LarRan (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The Chris Pronger reverts have to do with linking season articles, not full stops or the like. I wrote "not again" as an edit summary because I had a lengthy discussion with Piano non troppo about official band MySpace links where he didn't address the points I made, and I was simply maintaining status quo because he didn't give a good reason for removing the links. But that's another issue entirely. Drive-by taggings are a disease, and I don't see how adding "refimprove" when it's reasonably sourced helps the article. In that case, it's much better to tag individual claims with "citation needed", although I couldn't see any that needed that. As for Rogers Centre, I didn't notice that the info that was removed was integrated into the article already. Those embedded lists have to go, and I'll be doing some work on that later on. The article does very much suffer from unsourced OR, and what I added was a factual statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
But you did revert the initialism, reinserting full-stops. It's already been noted above that it's incumbent upon you not to revert good parts edits, but instead correct the bad parts. That you had discussed MySpace links is great, but not at all clear to other editors - and status quo is not an acceptable reason for ignoring policy. Your views on what constitutes a disease are also not a good reason for removing tags (and you may wish to rethink your description) - particularly as one {{refimprove}} tag is often better (for readability) than peppering an article with {{fact}} tags, though I note that you didn't even do that - you simply removed the {{refimprove}} tag altogether. Not realising that an un-cited claim already exists in an article seems to me to be a bizarre reason for re-adding that claim to an article: that the article suffers from un-sourced original research is no excuse for adding yet more un-sourced original research.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having problems with him, too. The infobox on Korn had been duplicated a ton, and I accidentally removed them all, instead of all but one. He then decided to tell me that he reverted my vandalism and called me a "stupid vandal noob" (although that was my edit summary for said "vandalism" although I didn't vandalize in the least way). User:Green caterpillar came to my aid, and reminded him not to bite the newcomers (it would seem this isn't the first time, as Green dug up a lot of incidents of Pwnage biting new IPs or users.) I replied on his talk page and signed his guestbook, both edits to his pages reminding him of the "vandalism" hoax he is trying to pull. He removed my signature and comment from his userpage guestbook, which I wouldn't mind, but he called it "garbage" on my talk page and removed it saying it was vandalism, and added it to the number of times his page has been vandalized. He also called pretty much everything Green said garbage. I'm really not surprised that his name is already on this page, he is very abrasive and rude to newcomers like me. I would like to point out that I am NOT a vandal and never will be. My evidence for all of this is on my talk page, his talk page, and Green caterpillar's talk page Thanks, Winstontalk 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Winston and everyone else pretty much summed it up in my opinion. Can't think of much else at the moment. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring policy with respect to the MySpace links. We both have our own interpretations of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and the issue hadn't been settled (and still isn't), so I was just upholding consensus (that they are allowed). I didn't put {{fact}} tags, because like I said, I didn't see any claims that needed them. Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree? I fail to see how that helps the article. What I added to the Rogers Centre article is not original research and could easily be cited. I wasn't going to bother with that at that particular moment though.

Now, as for this situation with Winstonator, here's what happened... I came across the Korn article in my watchlist, and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there), so I undid it.[5] Afterwards, I noticed that something was very wrong with the infobox. The image that used to be there was gone. I consulted the history, and noticed something very ironic. Winstonator's revision replaced the photo of the band with "erection development", which wasn't showing due to it being a "bad image" that is only allowed in relevant articles, and I found his edit summary quite intriguing because of this.[6] It was clear from this, that he had no idea how to revert vandalism, and I needed to consult him about the edit. I went to his talk page and added a tongue-in-cheek section about him being a "stupid vandal noob" (per his edit summary). I was expecting him to check the history and post on my talk page admitting his mistake. Two days later, I notice I have new messages from Winstonator and Green caterpillar. Out of my hundred or so edits in that timespan, Green caterpillar picked out three where he alleged I was making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. If one looks at this, I was removing an obvious bad faith edit. Also notice that I did not just revert the entire edit, but only the part that was obvious vandalism (a clever way vandals make their edits slip under the radar is to mix them with good-faith edits). This is a non-starter. And yes, when I'm accused of all these bad things in a warning template-style fashion I'm going to call it "inflammatory garbage".[7] Now, I know what's going on, so I really don't need to be bothered with this issue on my guestbook. It is not the place to post grievances about my edits. That's what the talk page is for. This is not what you do on someone's guestbook. Compare to this. Well, seeing how my post was taken the wrong way, I made a longer one explaining what he did wrong, and even gave him a link to Help:Reverting so that something like this won't happen again.[8] Today I noticed another post of his on my talk page, where he tells me to "assume good faith" and then proceeds to make bad faith accusations: "You seem to have an inflated ego, someone needs to pop that balloon. Green caterpillar is right, you're trying to make yourself look good by targeting innocent users like me."[9] You may not have wanted to vandalize, but you certainly did "f**k up the wiki", and all I wanted to do was make you aware of that. I also noticed that he posted a personal attack about me on his userpage,[10] which is a violation of the userpage policy. Per What may I not have on my user page? #10: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." I ask Winstonator to kindly remove it as soon as possible. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it off my userpage. I didn't know about Wikiquette alerts so I tried to take things up on your guestbook/talk page, but then I looked here. As for the "erection devolpment" thing, I thought that was a concert picture or something, as they tend to have odd names. I could have sworn that the picture showing was the regular band picture as well. I just want you to put the "userpage vandalized" count on your userpage back to 4, as I might have attacked you, but that wasn't "vandalism". You call everything vandalism. You can't act like a victim, the sequence of events went as follows:
I admit that the fault was mine of not correctly removing vandalism, but one thing I will not stand for is being accused of vandalizing myself. I said some things I shouldn't have, but so did Pwnage. You look down on everyone, as if you're better. That's my problem with you. Winstontalk 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I strongly disagree. When I see an article that needs more references, I tag it. When I see a section that needs more references, I tag it. And when I see a claim that is unreferenced, I tag it. In each case I make some effort to verify the claim first. I'd add that, like your earlier reference to tags as "a disease", phrases questioning editors' sanity are unhelpful at best. Please be more civil.
Earlier you appeared to claim that you had made no reversions in which the edit summary consisted of "Try again" (Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"?). I immediately found one; another editor has found another. Edit summaries like this are precisely why I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a game; it is a collaborative attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Doing so requires courtesy and respect for other editors, and a level of discussion that transcends snarky edit summaries like "Try again", "Not again" and adding unreferenced claims with "How is this not notable?"
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've lowered the vandalism count back down to four, per Winstonator's request.
  • Tagging is something that's arbitrary, and editors sometimes disagree about how and when it should be done. I did not see any reason for the tag to be there and couldn't find any claims that need sourcing. In any case, it's always helpful for the tagging editor to describe why they added the tag in the edit summary and/or talk page. It helps to avoid these types of cases.
  • The Rogers Centre article needs a ton of work anyway, so anything that needs to be sourced (and there's a lot of that) can be done later. I don't see what's wrong with the edit summary. If you're going to remove that claim, then you should remove all the others because they have the same problem.
  • Only two edit summaries that have "try again" in them does not constitute a pattern or problem that needs to be resolved here. I will keep it in mind however, that they are frowned upon. As for "not again", I don't really see the problem with that. I was upholding consensus, and I view Piano non troppo's MySpace removals as disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider and discuss this, and working towards an amicable solution. Notwithstanding other editors' views, I'm happy with this outcome.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lowering the vandalism count, I appreciate it. Winstontalk 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to give my (real) two cents, now that I could think of something.
My greatest concerns are that Pwnage8 is biting the newbies and not assuming good faith. The edits I put up on his talk page that Winston described are examples where editors at least tried to help, yet were treated rudely by him, and this is the kind of behavior that drives away new editors. Everyone was new once, and if people are constantly insulted and ridiculed in the manner Pwnage8 is doing, how many will stay to edit? Probably not many, which is why I want this to stop. Green caterpillar (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, I don't like Pwnage8's apparent assumptions of bad faith and contempt of IP addresses, such as above, when he said, "and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there)". Green caterpillar (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Three diffs = I bite newbies and assume bad faith? That's not assuming good faith. Although 84% of anon contribs are constructive, that still leaves 16% that aren't, which warrants every anon edit needing to be checked. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Take it or leave it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I can bring up more if you want, and it seems that LarRan has already brought up a couple. When Winston told me about you, I thought maybe it was an isolated incident, so I looked into your contribs, and these were just some I found at the top of the stack. And apparently, yes, I think you are biting newbies and assuming bad faith, per what everyone (including me) has said. Seeing that there is a Wikiquette alert on you, I decided to look deeper, including at some more recent contribs. Here are a few:
I am going to say this again. How do you think these users feel when edits they may have worked hard on are reverted with an unnecessarily harsh, unconstructive, or even no explanation? Do you think Wikipedia looks good in their eyes as a community? Probably not. This is why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I strongly recommend that you take a very good look at both of them, because many users can probably agree that you are violating them to some extent. It doesn't matter whether it's three edits or more; your editing behavior needs to change. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
On another note, this edit was not only a misinterpretation of H:RV, but calling someone a mindless busybody, as LarRan said, is a personal attack. It doesn't matter whether you phrased it differently either; according to WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Also, the wiki-cred comment on my talk page can also be considred a personal attack.
Seriously, please change your behavior. Per WP:NPA, your behavior could be enough to get you blocked already, per "...even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". I am not just making suggestions anymore - this is a warning. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just posting to prevent archiving. In the past few days I haven't been paying much attention to Wikipedia, that's why I haven't replied. I probably won't be at the computer until Nov 22 (UTC), and at that point, this thread would be fair game for MiszaBot II. I will replace this post with a proper reply when I get back. Please hold off on replying until I do so. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm posting for the same reason. Winstontalk 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. And again.

Why? The original message: "I probably won't be at the computer until Nov 22 (UTC), and at that point, this thread would be fair game for MiszaBot II". Today is Nov 27. If there's been no desire/attempt to reply by anyone and no additional concern raised, then let it go. ►BMW◄ 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
We all let it go, but apparently Green Caterpillar still has a problem with me, and has accused me of things I didn't do. I intend to defend myself against these accusations, I just haven't been around Wikipedia very much over the last couple weeks. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now then, let's get back to the issue at hand. Green caterpillar has made a lot of accusations in his last post, which are unfounded. The "good faith edit", as he puts it, to the Ontario article, introduced vandalism, unsourced claims and POV language. Reverting such a change does not need to be explained. Bands that are influential for a musical style are notable per the music notability guidelines, and should have their own article. The notability guideline is specifically constructed in such a way that notable bands have an article, and non-notable bands do not. Since nobody bothered to write an article, and there are no reliable sources to substantiate the claim and allow for an article, they are not notable and do not belong. You also complained about this reversion, which was undoing a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Why are you complaining about me upholding policy? You are also defending genre warring by complaining about this revert. Where are the sources that say they are "hard rock" and NOT "screamo"? Why are you defending blatant vandalism? Have you actually taken the time to check the factual accuracy of the change by the IP? It's wrong. "Nope" is absolutely a justification to revert in this case. "Nope. It isn't the administrative center of Samarskaya Oblast." Is it any wonder why I made the "wiki-cred" comment when all you are doing is making unfounded accusations and warning me about blocking when I am upholding policy? Do you think Wikipedia looks good as a community when you do that? You wouldn't make a very good administrator. All of this feels very BITEy to me. I'm being singled out for no reason.

As for the dispute with LarRan, apparently, you are late in this conversation, which is ironic, since my post is long overdue. I did not call him a "mindless busybody". Please refer to Bwilkins' first post. My watchlistitis did get in the way when I was making those edits, and it's already been discussed here. I should not have reverted like I did. Anything else? Another laundry list of "bad edits"? I think we're done here. I hope you are too. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help

user:Faustian trace my edits and put own vision of my words and edits [18] [19] Failed to proved any AD REM comments [20] he/she put other in misconseption about existing dispute on articles content by distoring the mean of issue - [21]

See my reply at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Can someone help me to comprehend. —BradV 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You reply is not help - becouse it does not provide nor advice, nor explanation. Administrator still keep silence [23] while I've read at Wikipedia:Administrators - [24] - [Wikipedia:Administrators]Jo0doe (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice User:HPJoker

Resolved. 2 separate warnings to HPJoker

After reviewing some talk page comments from a fellow editor of an article, I noticed that HPJoker has shown quite a bit of incivility (possibly bordering on personal attacks) in talk page comments and edit summaries, and seems to be using his userpage as a blog or form of social networking, which Wikipedia does not allow. Here are the diffs that I found to be concerning: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]

I was just wondering if there are any more experienced editors or even admins that would be able to sufficiently remind or warn the editor of the policies, as I would rather not be the target of the editor's wrath from what I've read of his comments. Atlantabravz (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned for both the improper humour/incivility with his "friend" and using the userpage as a social network. While I was there, I noticed that you had not advised them of this WQA filing. Please remember you are required to do so. ►BMW◄ 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that this situation is resolved. The editor in question has responded in this way: Here and Here. Maybe an admin needs to take a look at this editor's behavior. Atlantabravz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say his 72 hr block because of his replies makes it more resolved. Let's just say that the warnings "resolved" it to the level that WQA can, because we generally are unable to put blocks. ►BMW◄ 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette violations from MickMacNee

User:MickMacNee has been very rude to me at a certain AfD. After reviewing some of his past correspondences I see that this incivility is a pattern with this editor. Diffs here, here, here, and here correspond to his action against me at the AfD. His pattern of incivility can be seen by a threat here, editor harrassment here, an accusation here, an insult here, some belittlement here, calling another user a "drama whore" here, calling somebody ignorant here etc... All of these within the past four days!

I would like input about what can be done with this type of user who freely allows his/her temper to leak into Wikipedia. I would also like a direct, sincere apology from User:MickMacNee. We can still respect each other if we have different interpretations of policy. Themfromspace (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, I am being stalked for opinions at an AFD about cake. Wow. As for the Ireland edits, these are all likely to soon go to full arbitration, and if you don't understand the full timeline/context, it isn't realy sensible to cite one small part of out of context. But anyway, as for cake, anybody who thinks my comments are unreasonable will be entertained to the full extent of my abilities without laughing too much, I promise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment I believe the example given for "accusation" above makes more sense if read in conjunction with User talk:Sladen#A picture of a box no less, a previous thread—and when done so, the accusation of an accusation is somewhat less tenuous. (I have not evaluated any of the other edits). —Sladen (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, first I read the cake page (oh my god, delete it already - and don't "threaten" DRV because that's disruption, pure and simple). Then I read the diffs provided. As of this point, I really only see one case of "incivility". Snarkiness, maybe. I'm not a big fan of the shotgun approach here. I'm going to give you a chance to re-read your diff's and determine which actually violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. ►BMW◄ 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Readin and uncivil comments

Resolved. No incivility

User:Readin made the following comments against me on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), which I don't find particularly civil.

Now we've each had a chance to state a view. How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit (we know from your user page you have legal training) and let people put in their opinions. You seem to have too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people you disagree with. Give some other people a chance to respond.

As you can tell from the page as well as my edit logs, I did not make any comments to stop anyone from expressing their opinion. And what does the fact that I have received legal training got to do with anything? Please let me have your comments.--pyl (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you and Readin have a history here. In fact,because of this history, as an attempt to stimulate discussion from others (rather than just he focus of the arguments of the two of you), Readin requested input from others before the two of you started arguing. Regardless, Readin has not said that being law-trained was bad, or that lawyers are bad, or indeed that you are bad. Wikilawyering of any type is a bad bad thing. He does, obviously, recognize that your "strength" is an your ability to argue a position (whihc perhaps comes from your legal training). Please allow others input when it is requested, and WP:AGF. ►BMW◄ 12:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia has a very curious standard towards "civility", and I guess I should not expect Readin to be polite to me since we "have a history". Ever since the last discussion on this board, I have been acting as if the "history" never happened, but it now appears to me that the history is what I am stuck with.
If the logs are examined, I fail to see how I should be talked the way I was talked to by Readin. Is it civil in real life to accuse someone of having "too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people [he] disagree[s] with" and "How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit"? What have I done to deserve that kind of comments? What sort of "good faith" am I supposed to assume by these comments?
Are you saying that Readin can present half a picture, then request for others to comments, and I am not supposed to make my own case? I don't think I prevented anyone from commenting by me making my case.--pyl (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You completely miss the point, and by doing so you're also not AGF towards me. History has nothing to do with it, it was simply a side-note. If I'm chairing a meeting, and I ask for a roundtable discussion starting on my right, everyone (including you) will get to make their comment. However, if YOU decide to start instead, it may actually change the nature of everyone else's comments. Not soing so is like treating it like the discussion was ONLY you vs Readin and was simply like acting as if only the Crown and the Defense lawyers ever get to talk. This time, he was asking you to let the jury speak too. THAT is trying to elicit DISCUSSION and CONSENSUS and not simply make it an argument between 2 people. ►BMW◄ 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You completely miss the point, and by doing so you're also not AGF towards me. When the "history" is mentioned at the first place, I am not sure if any reasonable person would take it as a "sidenote".
It is not hard to tell that Readin's comments about lawyers was simply a smart arse comment. It is beyond me how this kind of smart arse comments are considered to be accepted in Wikipedia.
If the log and discussions are examined, it is clear that I simply just made my case and left it at that. I was happy to hear other editors to make comments. Using your example, I would say that it is unfair to invite the jury to make a comment when only half of the story is told. The discussion clearly showed that I was not arguing with Readin. I don't think good faith was assumed for my benefit.--pyl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you felt that your comment deserved to be heard before others has just proven my point. Thanks. Every so often, it would be wise to site back and listen to others first. ►BMW◄ 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, the very function of this forum is to deal with the complaints of people's uncivil conduct. The decision gives out the message that it is ok to make sarcastic comments against another editor if they don't listen to you. Indeed, any reasonable person in the real world would interpret Readin's sarcastic comment as saying that lawyers and legal training are bad. If you disagree with me, make those comments to your lawyer next time and ask your lawyer if he or she considers those comments civil. You then made a general comment that "Wikilawyering of any type is a bad bad thing". I am not sure what that means in this case, but I would find it offensive if being a lawyer means I am presumed to be doing Wikilawyering. If the logs are checked, it would be clear that there is absolutely no such evidence.

I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to prove here. It appears that you are saying I am not wise by not letting others speak first. If you check my logs, it would be clear that I do, and I understand your piece of wisdom. In the current situation, Readin presents a case that was biased - a story half told, and the requested comments would then serve less value. However, as I said above I believe this issue is outside the function of this forum.--pyl (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the bottom line is this: I was unable to see the purported sarcasm; I saw someone asking you to lay off what has appeared to be a history of "wikilawyering" for a few minutes in order to gain comments from other editors in order to try and gain broad WP:CONSENSUS (which was going to include your commentary as well). ►BMW◄ 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. That was no history of "wikilawyering". That's why I found the comments insulting and sarcastic. According to WP:LAWYER, wikilawyering means:-
Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions. It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:
1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
Check my logs and you will see that I don't engage in this type of practice. It appears that Readin has successfully used the fact that I'm a lawyer to make people assume or even presume that I do "wikilawyering".--pyl (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I provided specific instances above. I'll say no more on this issue other than say to work nicely and cooperatively with others, and they will respect and work nicely with you. It sure wouldn't have killed you to wait for a couple of other people to reply first, when you were recommended to do so. ►BMW◄ 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Editor2020 reverted pedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophia_(wisdom)&diff=249772507&oldid=249731570 this user's edit without an explanation. That's the kind of crap that keeps new editors from coming back. —Werson (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an etiquette issue. Editor2020 has already explained the edit here --neon white talk 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sudharsansn

Resolved. Blocked for short duration. Filing party blocked for an extended duration following ANI discussion.

User:Sudharsansn uses very bad uncivil language (latest being today at 1, 2, and 3), against me, simply because I dont agree with his revert-war-style of functioning. This is not the first time he is uncivil either, being a longtime wikipedia user, and his latest remarks are totally disgusting, to say the least. ­ Kris (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is definite issues with personal attacks, not assuming good faith and general incivility here. I've warned two users about edit warring on this article. Hopefully dispute resolution can now begin. --neon white talk 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
To let Srkris repeatedly talk about my profession, 1, 2 and 3 which he inferred from my mention of that in another talk page, and let him bash me is what is actually disgusting. It is nearly pointless to have a system, like Wikipedia, to work on the consensus gained by POV mongers, including having a Wikiquette page in which editors like Srkris, with absolutely no regard for anything in WP, report this here. He just wanted to get me blocked because he was blocked a few days earlier and he was involved in an edit war with in the Sanskrit article. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop whining here. Your basic intention is to intimidate editors and quite obviously you jump on them before they jump on you. You'd have been the object of this ban if I had reported about your repeated intimidations and uncivility. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


I like to appeal this ban, although it has been imposed, with the intention of clearing it off my block log. This was my post:

"Srkris, stop acting like you are drunk and berserk. Being a ruthless POV monger does not give you the right to talk about my profession or my field of study again and again"

These were his posts that preceded mine:

He has goaded me into asking him stop the nonsense and quoted me off the context to simply go on a rampage and get everyone against his POV banned. Although the block has passed, I would like the ban to be reconsidered and that removed off my block-log. A look into this is very, very relevant. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You were banned for your personal attacks at 1, 2, and 3 just two days back, and after coming back out of the ban, you again repeat the action yesterday, so your first ban didnt apparently help you, and you need probably another ban for the second offence. Me calling you a linguist or a sociolinguistics professor does not amount to any incivility and cannot have goaded you into using foul language against me, so your reasoning is amusing at best. ­ Kris (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what is being explained as a frivolous charge. To call someone a troll does not indicate a personal attack and this has been pointed out by several other admins and editors in the sections of this same page in which you have frivolous charges against other editors. Trolling indicates editing patterns and NOT the hairy creature from Norse mythology. Just because you cite something as a personal attack does not make it one. It has to be accounted for as a personal attack and consensus gained to establish it. You cannot unilaterally establish consensus that it is a personal attack.

You repeatedly talking about my profession in the disparaging sense and mapping that to what you consider as 'incompetence' thereby degrading me, my profession and my professional competence is what called goading someone. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your completely missing the point here. Simply saying "but he started it" doesn't justify the personal attacks above. From WP:NPA - it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. It may well be that Kris is using this as a way to get at you but just bare in mind that he wouldnt have been able to had you not responded. --neon white talk 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'd agree with the comment that personal attacks are not justified and Sudharsansn should not have responded as he did. However, a prolonged period of goading through personal attacks should be taken into account. I did contemplate suggesting that Sudharsansn should think about his response to baiting in future, in particular to use the dispute resolution process rather than responding in kind. Justin talk 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at that text again, if that was the post that resulted in a block, then to my mind the actions of the blocking admin were not entirely correct. The correct sanction (in my opinion) would have been to block both editors to allow them to cool off. Having blocked only one, the action seems punitive rather than preventative and blocks should never be used as a punishment. I can see how Sudharsansn might feel aggrieved, particular in light of the sustained personal attacks that preceded his outburst. Justin talk 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it was a harsh decision but a 12 hour isnt that big a deal, more of a cool off maybe. In my experience User:William M. Connolley is a reliable admin. He explains the block here. A particular part stands out - "Su knows WP:CIVIL well enough" this seems to me to suggest that Sudharsansn may have been warned before by this admin previously. In the end, as User:William M. Connolley points out on his talk page, he wasnt informed of the behaviour of Kris. Nobody posted any alert or report about it. We can't expect admins to be omniscient.--neon white talk 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I shared Justin's concerns. I didn't find any real warning issued on a brief look through the talk page history, but given that both editors ended up being blocked for incivility, this is now just a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is still a bit unfair that I was blocked for an outburst in which all I did was to ask Srkris to stop talking about my profession and equate it with what he considered 'incompetence', in a very strong, but not so inappropriate way. He was waiting for me to post something since he knew that attacks against one's profession would warrant something. Even if I had simply asked him to 'stop doing it', he would have reported it here by quoting me off context.

Quoting what I wrote,