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

Problems at Noahs Ark

I recently ran into some troubles at the talk page for Noahs ark. The dispute quickly escalated, first to EAR and then to ANI. During the conflict I was the target of several personal, and one blanket attack. The diffs are here both in the edit summary, and in the last few lines of his post. Here the user attacks another editor and creationists in general in the bottom paragraph. Here is a cyber improv satire directed at me. And here in the edit summaries of Dreamguy at 20:54, May 16, 2009, and at 22:16, May 16, 2009.Drew Smith What I've done 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew appears to have missed out a couple of links: (i) where he calls the other editors on Noah's Ark "a group of self proclaimed atheists" and (ii) where Christian Skeptic is the first to raise the accusation of "religious fanaticism". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And I quote " Not to invent any Cabals that weren't already there, but it appears that a group of self proclaimed atheists are controlling the article. I may be reading to much into this, and perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs". This was a request to have a neutral 3rd party give advice on whether my suspicions could possibly be correct. Not an attack.Drew Smith What I've done 04:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The article is about the boat itseld, not it's task, not who commanded it, and not whether or not the flood happened."

The Genesis narrative tells how God, grieved by the wickedness of mankind, decided to destroy all flesh upon the Earth with a flood. However Noah, one righteous man who "found grace in the eyes of God", was instructed to prepare for this flood by building an Ark and to retreat to it with his family and male and female representatives of the animals that inhabited the Earth. As the flood waters rose, all were killed but those sheltered inside the Ark. As the waters reached their height, "God remembered Noah," the waters abated, and dry land reappeared. After the family of Noah and the animals left the Ark, Noah offered sacrifice, and God was pleased and decided never again to kill every living thing.

— 2nd paragraph in lead of Noah's Ark

Is the disconnect, between Drew's claim and what the article actually says, a Wikiquette violation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And no Drew, this is not a "content dispute" it is a behavioural dispute over your misreprresentation of the content -- a misrepresentation that a couple of editors commented upon ([1][2]). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be primarily a content dispute at heart and all editors involved need to cease the name calling and accusations of bad faith and use all means to sort out the dispute. --neon white talk 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of choice comments by User:Drew R. Smith to give an indication of his idea of proper behavior: "Learn to read genius" (as part of a comment in which he is ostensibly apologizing to User:KillerChihuahua for being snippy) and, amazingly, "Jesus Christ man, read the fucking page! Up there/\ see it? No? Further up there/\! Keep going, did you find it? Good numbnuts, now lets come back down here and have an intelligent conversation without backtracking." (to User:Baseball Bugs, who was actually sympathetic to the edit he originally wanted to make). This from someone who recently nominated himself for a Mediation Committee spot with the claim "I want to be on the mediation committee because I enjoy solving conflicts between two parties". And the content dispute that started this began when several editors opposed him adding POV content to an article and then trying to justify it with horribly misinformed claims, like that all Christians believe that Noah's Ark is literally true and that Christians represent half the world therefore his personal religious belief must be presented in the article as the majority view. Between refusing to admit any wrongdoing, failing to understand the basics of our core policies, and extensive forum shopping to try to get his way, this editor is probably in need of a mentor to set him straight so he can start making positive contributions. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is totally a content dispute, and as sometimes happens, the wikiquette complaints are an unconstructive distraction. The complainant griped to me that I seemed to be switching sides - misunderstanding that this is about article content, and that the only "side" I'm on is trying to improve wikipedia, or at least trying not to make wikipedia look stupid. The complainant in this case has no grounds for complaining about wiki etiquette. The items he complained about originally were very mild, especially as compared with the hot-headed stuff he came back with that you note above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Baseball Bugs on this one. This is a mere content dispute. Baseball bugs is doing a great job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, this account is a brand new user whose only edits have been to enthusiastically support BB in multiple places on multiple topics. It's a bit over the top to be a sock of BB, but it bears watching. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an obvious sock of someone who bears a grudge against BB. He attracts those. One was blocked last night for attacks, this one's back to try and make by with a spoonful of sugar, it seems. Just ignore him, he'll be blocked again soon. Dayewalker (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to the sockpuppet case that concluded that? --neon white talk 10:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies, for anyone who's witnessed the cult of new accounts that follow BB around. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I told my roommate/sibling/friend/parrot to be a little more subtle than that. I tell ya, it's hard to get good help these days. I'll probably have to lay him/her/it off now. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratualtions, you have sufficiently turned a discussion about ettiquette into a joke. Honestly chihuahua, I don't know how you ever got on the MedCom, and I have no doubts that our recent conflict had now sway over your vote. @BB I apologised almost immediatly after I said those things, and explained that I was merely frustrated that you were bringing up things that we had already gotten past.Drew Smith What I've done 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius and Locke Cole

Resolved

 – Filing party advised to refrain from making vexatious complaints of this nature. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I announced my retirement from Wikipedia in protest of the date delinking mess, and these 2 users have brought some nastiness to my talk page here. They have longstanding civility issues at the whole Date Delinking Request for Arbitration; my complaint here is solely their bringing it to my talk page when one editor tried to politely wish me farewell. My retirement from editing does not mean I don't still use the site to look things up and therefore saw these messages on my talk page. User:Septentrionalis' comment is not a problem - I did not take it the way Ohconfucius and Locke Cole apparently did... I took "better spirited" in good faith to mean when I am feeling better, as I had mentioned being in a car accident recently. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 07:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for asking anyone else to intervene, particularly when you are aware that their conduct is under scrutiny by ArbCom - if there's a problem, please add it as evidence at the relevant ArbCom pages. You can resolve this yourself by reverting/removing any posts that are made to your talk page, and letting them know that you would not like them to make (certain) posts to your talk page. If, despite a reversion or message requesting them not to post on your talk page, they continue to leave such posts on your talk page, then report it to an admin noticeboard. I cannot appreciate you posting this vexatious complaint here (as a retired editor) that literally wastes the limited time many volunteers have to spend on-site. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I thought this was where we reported incivil users, and now you accuse me of wasting your time. Just another way Wikipedia is broken, and more incentive for me to leave. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not excused. You were not reporting incivility so it's not Wikipedia that is broken; you were simply wasting others time with a complaint about something you'd already resolved, and that's being resolved in another venue (this could amount to forum-shopping). Bringing this vexatious nonsense here simply highlights your ill-considered judgement, and a sense of unwillingness or inability to work within the community's framework and norms - when you consider that as incentive for your departure, I can't imagine anyone else uninvolved being ready to convince you to stay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that Sept's original comment was not uncivil ... "in better spirits" does indeed mean "in a better frame of mind". To be honest, however, this really is in many ways not the right venue for the issue, whether it's being looked at by ArbComm or not. Ohconfucious (according to WP:AGF) misunderstood Sept's comment. LC then took a swipe at them. None of those 3 people took any form of public attack against you - they were snotty to each other, but not you. IMHO, I would have simply responded "if you guys want to misunderstand the original post and fight, then please don't do it on my talkpage", and then delete it if they continued. Rule 1: always try to resolve issues directly with the users - advising Ohconfucious that they misunderstood would have been a good first step to avoid the drama. Happy ... "retirement"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourtildas

The above user has made comments that are offensive (antisemitic?) on the Israel discussion page Talk:Israel#A_Nation_State. This is not the first time he has appeared. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried just ignoring him/her/it?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the sort of thing we should ignore. Race-baiting and discriminatory language are not acceptable. Users should make their case using rational argument and citing sources, not by hurling hate speech around on talk pages. Disagreements are never solved by name calling. This article, and anyone who edits it are subject to sanctions for a reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken the unusual step of refactoring the offending remarks as I firmly believe that hate speech has no place on Wikipedia. Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and this sort of talk has no place here. Feel free to disagree on a talk page, but keep it WP:CIVIL. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind should I come across any instances of same.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually ignoring him was effective last time but as the comments were not directed towards me and this was not the first time I thought I would make a complaint. This is the first time I have made a complaint and I was curious to see how things work. Thanks for your time. It will be interesting to see how he responds. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

Many comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab are bordering incivility and personal attacks and many appear to be in breach of WP:AGF.

Ironically, many of these AGF complaints I have are about AGF complaints made against us. They claim that by my nominating the project, I am failing to assume good faith; a claim I disagreed with here. Brangifer claimed the nomination was 'based on a failure to AGF, which is itself a policy violation, thus rendering the nomination illegitimate', when in fact a number of valid concerns had been made. I believe that this in itself is a failure to assume to assume good faith in me. And the later part in my opinion is wrong and calling something illegitimate is wikilawyering.

Many arguments by editors in support of the project are ad hominem against those who oppose it. Editors have claimed argues against the project are based out of 'ignorance' [3] (User:BullRangifer, a comment that is clearly directed at the project's opponents. Drew R. Smith claimed that 'it almost seems like you were skimming for keywords and didn't read his post at all' to an editor, a claim which in my opinion clearly violates the assumption of good faith. Drew R Smith disagreed with me that this could be seen as incivil [4] after I rose the issue on his talk page [5]. Drew actually suggested I raise the topic here.

I would very much like all editors, perhaps including myself, to be more civil but this is problematic when users refuse to acknowledge that their actions could even be seen as incivil. Computerjoe's talk 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I failed to see the reply on User talk:BullRangifer, where he justifies some of the words used. I still find them a little strong, though, and still contest his assumption of good faith. Computerjoe's talk 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed a section from the WikiProject's page that takes a very hostile tone and really very much fails to assume good faith. [6]. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it too much, but I don't know who put that there. But I agree, that needed to go.Drew Smith What I've done 20:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer put it there it would appear [7]. I invite his comment. Computerjoe's talk 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I most certainly have doubts about the person who invented this project, but that doesn't diminish my support for the project itself.Drew Smith What I've done 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the notice and tweaked it so as not to offend the extremely sensitive sensibilities of the one who raised this issue. This board should not be misused to complain about small perceived slights. That's not proper. This board is for more serious matters.

As to my comments about "ignorance", a bit of context is needed to avoid being misled by the comments above. My comments at the MfD were clearly framed to be specifically about the ignorance of my comments that has been going on. I started the project in good faith, and many false statements and speculations have been made, so I have made specific replies in the MfD to set the record straight. Then the same false statements have been made and repeated by a number of editors, showing that they have been ignorant (in "ignorance" of) of my comments. I have not accused anyone of being dumb, just in "ignorance" of my comments. Any other interpretation, considering my specific comments, is an assumption of bad faith aimed against me. They should be reading my comments and accepting them, instead of replying as if I was lying or as if they had not read them. I think the latter is the case. If I had stated that they had "ignored" my comments, that would have been a strong accusation of deliberately acting in bad faith. I did not do that. My comment was accurate, and the one who started the MfD has taken offense. I suggest his sensitivities need to be adjusted up a notch to an adult level.

This matter doesn't even rise to the level for an accusation of incivility. We're adults here and should be able to talk straight talk without fearing that we'll be censored. Already the starter of this thread has attempted to intimidate me and Drew R. Smith with warnings on our talk pages. That's not a nice way to deal with the situation. He has the nerve to attempt to prevent a fledgling project from getting established and showing its true colors, then he and his sympathisers attack it with speculations based on their own fears, not actual facts, and he expects his attack to be met with abject submission and kowtowing? No, we have a right to respond and defend ourselves, but he doesn't like that. Too bad. I have responded in a civil but direct manner, and see this thread as yet another attempt by him to silence all opposition.

Now that Drew R. Smith has expressed his doubts about me (for some unknown reason), I'll leave him to deal with this and the project. I will not work in an environment of distrust and assumptions of bad faith. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not for an unknown reason. I expressed doubts after learning that you were the one who posted the attack. This doesnt mean leave the project though.Drew Smith What I've done 04:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll oblige you out of curiosity. What "attack"? (BTW, I consider the MfD an "attack".) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- This attack [8]. This kind of thing is unacceptable.Drew Smith What I've done 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how grammar and parsing works in your part of the world, but if you read that again, it is a response to an attack, IOW a notice akin to the one at the top of that page. Since someone questioned it, I reworded it, since someone apparently has overly sensitive sensibilities, can't take being disputed, and actually admits he doesn't know!. He can dish it out by starting a premature MfD, but can't take any contrary response or defence. It was a notice about an attack. If one were to be pendantic about it, it could be considered a counterattack, but it wasn't the first attack. I'm not considering your starting of that matter an attack, but the following use of it by enemies of the project. Those are the attacks I was referring to. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The MfD wasn't premature. I nominated it based on the content at the time. Whilst some concerns have been addressed, not all have. I do not know the action plan your project has so I thought it would be inappropiate for me to answer that user without redirecting them to you. Your tone is remarkably rude, in my opinion. Calling people enemies and such really isn't suitable for Wikipedia; all Wikipedians have the same goal! Computerjoe's talk 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what I said. It seems the only way this could be offensive is if the editor really did skim the post, in which case, he/she deserves to feel offended.Drew Smith What I've done 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda

User:Jacurek calls an edit made by me, referenced with reliable secondary sources in Strategic bombing during World War II as 'clear Nazi propaganda', when mediation was asked for, he refused any discussion, and implied that I am the same category as Holocaust deniers. Kurfürst (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Remind the editor that while they have no obligation to take part in disussion or dispute resolution, if they choose not to they simply have no input and a consensus will be formed with or without them that they will have to accept. Also notify the editor of the alert. --neon white talk 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, British Student Television and Glasgow University Student Television

I don't know whether this is the right place to raise this, but the situation surrounding these two articles is becoming untenable.

The contentious issues began over the Glasgow University Student Television article. JMalky and Tomisaac and myself became involved in a notability conversation with Sherzo. There was no consensus and after a period of time had elapsed, Sherzo re-directed the page towards a new article British Student Television, mostly taken from Tomisaac's sand box. I recreated the GUST article and nominated it for AFD and that's where the trouble really started.

After the AfD ended, Sherzo nominated me for a RFCU (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TorstenGuise) with a group of other editors as they had previously not been involved in the article. The RFCU was thrown out on the grounds of fishing. After which, one of the users involved, Bluecord in his own conflicts with Sherzo stupidly created a sock-puppet to attack Sherzo (which I have condemned).

Since then, there has been a serious level of incivility by Sherzo towards any editors having a position in favour of the GUST and the British Student Television. Sherzo is acting as if he owns the articles and any change made by such editors are usually marked as vandalism.

I've come to the end of my tether with all of the abuse and almost left the community for good. JMalky is currently suffering the abuse from Sherzo and I'd like the community to try and mediate here. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence in the form of diffs and notify the user about this alert. Sounds like another avoidable situation created by an improperly closed afd. Seen as it was some time ago, if the article is still contentiuous then i'd suggest another afd is needed. On first glance the article is severly lacking in notability and reliable sources and, in it's current state, would be unlikely to survive, solves all the silly edit wars. So i'd go with that first. --neon white talk 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. The simplest evidence is the articles history. The majority of edits made by this user are reverts. I'm not going to comment on notability, but the AfD was unopposed, which was probably why an admin closed it. I created the AfD for that purpose. to establish notability and end the edit warring. However, it was following the closure that the abuse really started. For the start of the abuse, please see Here. The relevant statement that began the abuse is:

wikipedia is not a democracy,and your hopes of it existing ad infinitum because no one cares is poor form

The counter debate is here. A report was made, by Sherzo, on the administrators noticeboard that can be found here and the response made by multiple editors over his actions are here.

Other that that, just check the history of the articles noted. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"just check the history" or "just check his contributions" are the quickest way to get it ignored. We're all so busy building an encyclopedia, we don't have time to fish. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think another AfD is the best and quickest way to settle this. Strike that actually. At the moment the argument is over references in the article. A second opinion on those would be a better place to start. JMalky (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of etiquette it is laughable, since I have frequently engaged in debate despite the hostile tone that has been taken by Tortenguise etc, both Tomisaac and Jmalky have admitted that personal involvement has lead to misleading information in an attempt to overstate the notability of such groups in the hopes that they can remain on the sight, with little or no reliable sources. This is yet another part in Jmalky and Tortenguise in what A Man In Black said was "seems that he's trying to get support to bully an editor to prevent a merge" Sherzo (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, the article has been through two AfD's, and attempt to merge it with a very poor 'british student television' article. Having not had your way in those arguments, you've been carpet bombing the page with 'citation needed' tags, cleanup tags etc, and posting anti-vandalism notices on my talk page. You've got a bizarre vendetta against the GUST article which I honestly can't get my head round. Tomisaac has come to the point of leaving wikipedia because of your bullying behaviour, and I'm considering doing the same. Finally, I can't speak for Tomissac but yes, I've been involved with GUST and student television in the past. But I wasn't aware that being involved with an article's subject precluded you from contributing to it. AfD's, merge discussions etc are between many editors and I thought reflected an objective consensus. JMalky (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I see you're reverting edits/adding threatening notices to the talk page of a third user, Cloudo, as he's making an honest attempt to improve the page. JMalky (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. On my talk page there are discussions going back over a year involving further users who've complained about your editing on this topic, and in the last AfD discussion you accused all the users who voted to keep the article (100% of the vote, incidentally) of being sock puppets, and posted abusive tags on their user pages. JMalky (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)