Revision as of 18:23, 5 April 2009

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 Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA 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

Anon 86.25.18*.* contentious editing and misleading edit summaries at History of Terrorism

Some of the IPs are:

• 86.25.182.135
• 86.25.183.157
• 86.25.180.130
• 86.25.183.212

And possibly others. He has repeatedly accused me and other editors of vandalism for putting tags on a the article that at least one uninvolved reviewer said had merit. I have tried several times in the talk page to ask him or her to not use misleading edit summaries, to engage in substantial debate, and to refrain from personal attacks against me and other editors.

I will provide diffs if requested, but the recent history and the talk page (including the recent archive) speak for themselves. Accusing other editors in an content dispute of vandalism doesn't strike me as productive, in particular when good faith attempts at discussing the matters are subjected to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refusals and personal attacks over substantive arguments.

There are other issues that make editing in good faith or develop any consensus hard, but this is the main one.

A secondary one is that these IPs might be bad-hand sockpuppets of an otherwise registered editor, but I would ask uninvolved admins to opine on this matter. The editor in question has had a low level of activity in this topic, but there is weak evidence to support the claim. I will not name the editor until further comment. I will also refrain from editing until this is either resolved or further dispute resolution is required. --Cerejota (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerekota is the only person ignoring other editors i have posted on their talkpage and the userpage asking cerejota to defend specific points of the tags, which cerejota ignores please examine the talk page its archive and cerejota own talkpage, where you will also notice the previous incidents with cerejota that lead to them being blocked.

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect some to offer justification for the tags they add, particularly when challenged they remove about half of those they initially added then will not respond to questions about the rest.

as for sockpuppets I do find it funny that the only editor that "agrees" who's notable for several POV pushes turned up not long before you "Haberstr" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.24 (talk • contribs) 16:41, March 24, 2009

I would suggest requesting semi-protection from RPP (surprised it isn't protected already due to the controversial nature of the topic). Once that is in place, the IP will be forced to either discuss it on the talk page, create an account and have a single "user" to deal with rather than a dynamic IP, or just walk away from the article if he is not willing to discuss it. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? wikipedia supposed to be open encyclopedia, and before cerejota and haberstr we've never had a problem with vandalism, i have worked on the article consistently and discriminating against those who chose not to have IPs as you do above is a breach of wikiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.24 (talk • contribs) 16:41, March 24, 2009

I agree with semi, but the issue is that s/he does post in talk, usually with personal attacks or plain ad hominems, addressing the editors and not the content. Could an uninvolved party consider doing the RPP? I do not want to seem as I am trying to gain an edge on an editing dispute by silencing an anon.--Cerejota (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota you are the only person not address content as that is ALL ANYONE HAS ASKED YOU TO DO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.24 (talk • contribs) 16:41, March 24, 2009

I have also received numerous abusive comments on the talk pages and inaccurate edit summaries casting aspersions on my good faith edits by 85.25. The record speaks for itself, I'm open to suggestions, and will push on politely. . . .Haberstr (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• The page in question is now fully protected for a few days. 86.25, please stop with the incivil tone and baseless vandalism accusations. All of you can use this time as a chance to calmly discuss these content issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

86.25.x.x, please sign your contributions. You can do so very easily by typing 4 tildes at the end of your text, and if you don't do this you present other editors with the unnecessary chore of sorting out where one comment ends and the next begins. If you intersperse your comments between contributions of other editors you should also place a separate signature at the end of each part of your comment which is separated from the others.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

86.x.x.x continues to refuse to sign his/her posts. He/she continues contentious edit warring and abusive name calling (e.g., calling other edits "vandalism" in edit comments), and now has moved on to harrassing me with the same behavior at wikipedia's "state terrorism" site. How do I ask for "semi-protection from RPP," as suggested by Seeker4 above, assuming that means protection from anonymous editors when they are abusive and so on.Haberstr (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, this is the type of behavior in that talk page: constant accusations, off-indent and unsigned talk, accusations of vandalism or policy violations etc. Now, does anyone see value on pursuing WP:SOCK? Or am I over reacting? I have serious issues with assuming good faith at this point. How to proceed?--Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon users continues with personal atatcks, and refusing to sign posts in talk.--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Same anon user continues with personal attacks and refuses to sign posts in talk.Haberstr (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to, in fact you should check the last of the 5 pillars!

Apparently same anon using now a different address range from the same provider ( 80.5.41.89 ) has again acussed me of vandalism for placing tags, continues to not sign edits, and refuses to address substantive point of content. Please someone do something, this is really making it impossible to have substantive discussion on content, because we have to focus on this trollish behavior and lame edit warring around tagging instead of improving the article.--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only troll is you cerejota, you have contributed nothing to the article place tags you can't defend, evade all questioning and avoid any substantive discussion.

new in April

Apparently same anon using now a different address range from the same provider ( 80.5.41.89 ) has again acussed me of vandalism for placing tags, continues to not sign edits, and refuses to address substantive point of content. Please someone do something, this is really making it impossible to have substantive discussion on content, because we have to focus on this trollish behavior and lame edit warring around tagging instead of improving the article.--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

all anyone wants of you cerejota is for you to MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE POINT!

After I noticed this in the talkpage, the user insists on calling this vandalism, removed the tags, and was reverted by another user. How can we proceed, this person is not being productive at all, claiming false things, and refusing to listen to substantive points being raised, arguing that "his questions are not being answered" when they in fact have been answered extensively by me and other editors. I hope someone comments soon. --Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only unproductive person is your cerejota, you refues to engage in any discussion on the article and are generally evasive when questioned about your fluctuating choice of tags you can't justify.

Hateful edit summary by User:Shiham K

Undid my edit using the following edit summary . Gross violation of civility. This user needs to be taught a lesson in manners. --Athenean (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that that's highly uncivil. I'm not sure that saying he 'needs to be taught a lesson in manners' will do your own case or image much good, alas. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but still, I think a civility warning for this individual is definitely in order. I have never come across such behavior before, and I've been editing wikipedia for a while. --Athenean (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notified user of this alert. Please note when filing a complaint, you should notify all involved parties of the complaint on their talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do in the future. --Athenean (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the remark is very offensive; since it was used as the edit summary of a revert, it is difficult to imagine it being directed at anyone other than the editor being reverted. I am inclined to issue have given a warning to the user. I hope that there won't be any repeat of this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. --Athenean (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some doubts that the remark was intended as uncivil. I think it might mean something like "it is necessary to have people who clean things". (A hamam is a Turkish bath, and a tellak is an attendant who scrubs and massages the visitors.) Since Shiham K is Turkish and as I understand all Turks visit Turkish baths, I can't quite see how this could have been intended as an insult. But of course I might be missing something. Looie496 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the tellak article, you'll see that he's effectively calling the other user a whore. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:R. fiend

This name calling was uncalled for ]. Also his third revert.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, you are clearly both engaged in edit warring. This must cease at once. If two editors find themselves in conflict, they should seek consensus. Ask for an opinion from WP:3O or initiate an WP:RFC, but don't revert war. Secondly, yes, calling someone a moron in gross incivility and is not acceptable. Childish insults and name-calling are all well and good on a playground, but this is an encyclopedia. So, both of you cut the edit war, and let the article stand as is while you try to seek consensus on this issue, and please, no more name calling. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the notice board for incivility. Edit Warring is when there is a violation of 3RR, which I have not violated.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, edit warring is any reverting and counter-reverting of edits, it doesnt necessarily need to breach the 3RR and blocks can be issued regardless. "3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) --neon white talk 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to edit-war to insert a picture of Barack Obama to illustrate "cult of personality", you need to be ready to put up with some hostility. Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility requires that all editors are treated with respect and good faith is assumed regardless of their views. An editor should be prepared to explain why the picture is necessarily on the talk page but should not be "ready to put up with some hostility". --neon white talk 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, your previous edit summary was "Can't prove it, but you revert, like you own the article", which is uncivil its own right, as accusing of ownership in this situation was intended as an insult. Although "moron" is often uncivil, "prove that you're not a moron" does not indeed call you a moron. This appears to be a tit-for-tat commentary in the middle of an unencyclopedic edit war by two disagreeing editors whose passions had inflamed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Using that logic, then just about anything can be considered an uncivil personnal attack--Jojhutton (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon and Bwilkins can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the point we are all trying to make to you is that you have both engaged in behavior that is not constructive, including multiple reverts and edit summaries that are not actually a summary of your edits but rather personal comments to one another. The discussion on the talk page makes it clear that you two are not going to agree on this point, meaning that more input was needed. I went ahead and filed a request at WP:3O and there has been a response. If that isn't enough to solve this, you can initiate an RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that User:R. fiend is acting uncivilly on Talk:As I Lay Dying (, ) his unconstructive swearing is unneeded nor is it appropriate. And so far, he has not expressed any intent on stopping this uncivil behavior. Also, this behavior is not new, in fact, they were once an admin but due to civility issues they resigned at their own request during a request for arbitration. Jerry teps (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More inappropriate comments, , , , , plus many more which I feel would be nit picking if I included them. Jerry teps (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The matter arises from conflict at WP:DICDEF. This user described a good faith edit of mine as vandalism. (diff). I asked him to retract at his talk page and he continues to develop his incivility. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, and I find this regretable to say, but it's an accurate characterisation. A vandal is one that vandalises. Note that he changed a policy page without any discussion at the time, while claiming that it had been agreed and discussed. He only changed one tiny part of the wikipedia's policies, and left all the other references to it being a policy dangling and unchanged. I consider this to be self-evidently an attack on the wikipedia, and given the deception involved, this can only really be considered vandalism. As the policy says:- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The facts of the matter are not as Wolfkeeper states. The edit which he describes as vandalism was accompanied by postings to the corresponding talk page immediately before and after the edit. (diff, diff, diff) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case really; none of those are a proper discussion of a change to the policy at all.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While the term "vandalism" may not b technically accurate, User:Colonel Warden's edits were clearly disruptive and intending to take a fight he's been having in multiple locations to the page describing why what he was doing was wrong to change it to justify this action. A lot of these pages are unfortunately not watched very well, and a couple of people can end up distorting longstanding policy just by stealth edits (if successful) and edit warring/tag teaming (if necessary) and then try to use that as an excuse to ignore policy. I've seen a lot of similar disturbing edits on lots of similar pages. While the vandalism accusation is regrettable, this whole report (and a number of other such actions the complaining editor has made over the years) seems nothing more than an attempt at WP:Civil POV pushing. Demanding a retraction for a relatively minor infraction under threat of escalating disputes is not a good faith attempt to resolve situations, it's an attempt to egg fights on for self-serving purposes. The editor in question also typically demand retractions for actions that aren't infractions at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The long history of DreamGuy's incivility is currently under discussion elsewhere so we should not digress. The salient point here is that even DreamGuy acknowledges that Wolfkeeper is at fault. Our policy on the matter states that it is non-negotiable and so Wolfkeeper should please cease his self-justification and retract. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with both DreamGuy and Colonel Warden. "Vandalism" is a very serious accusation and involves the vandal's bad faith. Colonel Warden might have been disruptive, but I haven't looked into the matter nor will I since that is beside the point of this WQA. If his actions were done in good faith then they weren't vandalism per se. I think the cry of "vandalism" should be taken back and friendly discussion resumed on the article's talk page per the BRD procedure. ThemFromSpace 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the subject line, it's clearly in bad faith, since there was no such discussion on the talk page for months.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And given that it was bad faith you simply have to consider whether it is an attack on the wikipedia. Is changing the very first policy on WP:ISNOT into a guideline not an attack on the wikipedia? I say yes, of course. If that edit had been left there for longer it could have actually been considered a legitimate change to the wikipedia's policy, away from being an encyclopedia. It would actually constitute consensus..- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Any way you cut it, it's a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the wikipedia. There may be people out there right now that really do think that that policy is only a guideline, because that's what it said, and they don't have to follow it. This really is a vandalism.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is becoming apparent that you have issues with assuming good faith. However controversial an edit may be, please assume that it was done to improve the encyclopedia. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this was done in bad faith. My advice to Colonel Warden is that the change the status of a page really needs a consenus with wide community participation. --neon white talk 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Just for the record the vandalising edit is: and the state of the talk page at the time was: . If you read the talk page as I did before reverting the vandalisation, you find there is no significant active discussion at all; and the subject line (reduce to guideline status per talk) is, not to put too fine a point on it, a deliberate deception. I also remind you that I am not forced to maintain good faith when there is clear evidence of wrong doing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of vandalism or bad faith in that edit. Calling something vandalism assumes bad faith. I advise you to stop using the term in relation to this dispute and stop the bad faith accusations. Neither are helpful to the project. Read Misplaced Pages:VANDALISM#How not to respond to vandalism. The discussion is not necessarily on the articles talk page we need to wait until Colonel Warden clarifies this. Until then we assume good faith and as you have no strong evidence of disruptive editing it is required. --neon white talk 05:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong there had been no discussion to see on the talk page for months, there had been no proposal to change it, no polling, nothing. The subject line stated that it had been discussed, but there was nothing to see on the talk page at all. That makes the subject line an actual deception; a lie.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"The discussion is not necessarily on the articles talk page". Discussions about policies and guidelines require wide consensus, it's possible it may have been discussed at the village pump. --neon white talk 07:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• User:Wolfkeeper again misrepresents the facts. The edit summary for my edit was reduce to guideline status per talk. This accurately describes the edit made and indicates that more is said about the matter on the talk page. This is fully compliant with the advice given at WP:FIES. And, as I made corresponding posts on the talk page, there was no deception. If I had instead said something like "per consensus" then Wolfkeeper might have a point but I did not. The matter in question has been under discussion for over a year now and there are other editors who support my general position. User:Wolfkeeper seems to have a contrary position on the matter and his language seems to poison the well rather than helping us to arrive at a good consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any proposal to change the pages status. Can you proved diffs? Ultimately, good faith should ahve been assumed and as suggested above, accusing another editor of vandalism is not recommended. --neon white talk 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I started some discussion on the matter but that fizzled out inconclusively. I returned to the matter and took action as it seemed that there was no consensus for the policy. No-one responded to my action or talk for many weeks until Wolfkeeper reverted. I take the position that this page does not work in practise as a policy and that too few editors participate in discussions about it for it to represent community consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this has nothing to do with the etiquette issues, the article seems to have been policy for at least 4 years now so it is well established and any downgrading of this really needs a community wide consensus. I'm not sure whether you need to go to the village pump as you would to establish a new policy but it's probably advisable. --neon white talk 12:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not well-established - this is where I came in. I tried centralised discussion but this attracted few editors. Compare with the original elevation to policy. This seems to have been a drive-by categorisation by an editor based upon his personal opinion. He did not engage in talk and does not seem to have been following any community mandate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4 years seems well established to me. Have you look in the village pump archives to see if it's status was discussed? Either way any major change needs wide consensus however long it takes. --neon white talk 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see our editing policy which was equally long in the tooth but which has become quite a football lately. There is, in practise, no bar to any editor creating or amending any policy and quite a lot of this goes on. I have myself amended other policies. Some changes pass without comment while others are contested and so it goes. In any case, none of this is vandalism/incivility, which is our topic here. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the wording of a policy or guideline is very different to changing the status of it. You cannot simply create your own policies it needs community consensus and i would think the opposite would too. I have alreay stated that i believe the edit to be in good faith but now you must go back to discussion per Misplaced Pages:BRD. --neon white talk 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SILENCE which seems applicable to this case. Your reference to WP:BRD is correct but note that this has been followed in this case as I did not edit-war over the change, which took place some months ago, and have started and engaged in much discussion before and since. My actions have been quite restrained and so do not warrant the outrageous incivility and threats which User:Wolfkeeper continues to make. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, carry on lying in your subject lines about non existent consensus, and you'll find that there is indeed a bar for amending policy, the one where you get barred for repeated violation of editing privileges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Posted a warning on User about assuming good faith as this editor continues to make bad faith accusations. --neon white talk 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is not even close to vandalism (but I don't think the accusation is worth Wiki-alerting about, either.) --Boston (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The major problem is that this editor is unwilling to accept that this is not acceptable under civility policy. Colonel Warden has explained his actions and they seem quite reasonable and done in good faith as far as i can see. Despite it being explained that the edit was not vandalism and therefore the accusation was not appropraite and good faith should have been assumed, Wolfkeeper has continued not only with the accusations, including the one above ("lying in your subject lines"), but also is misrepresenting Colonel Warden's actions (Colonel Warden has never claimed there was a consensus for the edit). An editor with the preconceived idea that anyone who makes an edit he/she doesn't like is a 'vandal' and a 'liar' is only going to cause disruption. --neon white talk 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I try to keep to main space and out of "complain space" but I recognize User:Wolfkeeper from the latter nevertheless. You are both correct in that this user won't just let it rest at an accusation of "vandal" and then move onto something else. This user will keep disrupting Misplaced Pages with shouting, bluster, threats, accusations, etc. User:Wolfkeeper says below "I've said all I'm going to say". I wonder how many hours that will last. --Boston (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• 3.1 :) Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related topic, it's crystal clear that neither of you are assuming good faith on my part, and if this behaviour continues I will raise a wiki-etiquette alert on both of you.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• User:Wolfkeeper threatens to have me sanctioned for the action which he misrepresents as vandalism. His user page declares that his hobby is getting vandals banned. I tended to shrug off such vexatious threats from other editors in the past but find that this results in increasing impudence and so I now try seeking dispute resolution to see if that works better. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to enter into that, and I've said all I'm going to say.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that Wolfkeeper is suffering from WP:IDHT. He is refusing to get the point. Colonel Warden clarified above that his comment "as per talk" did NOT mean there was consensus on the talk page, but rather that he was explaining his action on the talk page. That is perfectly normal, correct and uncontroversial usage of the phrase "as per talk." As noted above, if he had said "as per consensus on talk" or some such, that would be deceptive and dishonest. This was not vandalism. Continuing to characterize it as such is disruptive. I also would note that it would be a bad idea to raise a retaliatory WQA or other such complaint and I, as an uninvolved third party, believe the scrutiny would be focused on your behavior, as it has been less than stellar. Just to prevent accusations of supporting Warden because I agree with him, I in fact don't think that policy downgrading was a good idea, I don't agree with it and think he should have opened a RFC or some such before taking action, but do NOT think his action was disruptive, and it certainly was not vandalism. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kids In Need Foundation

A new editor, user:Buhealex01 is having difficulty with maintainging a neutral point of view with article Kids In Need Foundation. Discussion to date can be found at Talk:Kids In Need Foundation. I, user:whpq, am the oly other involved editor. -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you post some diff's where incivility or public attacks have occurred? If this is a content dispute, the you might need to look for a neutral content opinion instead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted here based on "Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies" and the otjher editor being a new editor. But the dispute is primarily over neutrality of article content. If you feel this is better placed at WP:THIRD, I'll take it there. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is supposed to refer to WP:etiquette and WP:civility policies only. Possibly needs clarying. Either WP:30 as suggested or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might work. --neon white talk 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see I've misinterpreted. I think this probably makes most sense at NPOV noteiceboard, but I think I'll take another stab at it via discussion before taking it there. Thanks, and please consider this matter resolved. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism and unjustified threat

I have received the following message on my talk page:

March 2009 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at The Ting Tings, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop trying to push your image into this article. It is not relevant to the "early years" section. If you continue to re-add it without discussion, you will be blocked for vandalism. ~~ 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed the photograph of Katie White next to her name, which is an appropriate place for such a photograph. I consider that my behaviour does not meet the definition of vandalism and does not merit the imposition of a threat, which has made me feel harassed and bullied on this website. I would like this matter to be investigated and the allegation and threat to be formally withdrawn. For further information, I have now moved the photograph further down the page in response to this message which the author could have done himself if he was unhappy about the positioning of the picture, rather than deleting it entirely. Please let me know if any further details are required. Holly har (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now received a further allegation of edit warring from the same person who has not withdrawn his previous allegations and threat. It is clear that I was not engaging in this activity and this further allegation has further added to my feeling of being harassed and bullied on this site. I would request that this be withdrawn as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly har (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the accusation was improper. I will warn the editor in question. Any editor can "warn" anyone for anything, and some editors are unfortunately clumsy in handling such matters. Others try to place fake warnings as intimidation. I don't know the thought process involved, but we should always assume it was well intentioned. Even if well intentioned it was clearly wrong.

Your actions could, however, be described as edit warring. Of course so could the actions of the person who "warned" you about it. I'll point that out to them as well.

Resolving disputes means sometimes you just have to ignore people and let the past be the past. You probably won't get a formal apology, but if the improper warnings cease then you should count that as a victory. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add to what DreamGuy said; both "sides" in this have been edit warring, which means continually reverting one another. This is a blockable offense, even if you are technically not violating the three revert rule. It is, of course, blockable for both sides as it takes two (or more) to edit war. Next time someone objects to an addition to an article by reverting you, do NOT revert them, but instead ask why they disagree with your addition on the talk page. The WP:BRD essay has some helpful pointers on this issue. Edit warring will usually lead to flashes of temper, which is exactly why it should be avoided. Whenever you are reverted, stop and ask "what harm will come of leaving this version as is until the discussion is over?" If it is an issue such as wording or the placement of an image, the answer is none, so discuss, don't revert. Again, I agree with DreamGuy about the vandalism accusation, and agree with his warning to that editor, but edit warring is not acceptable. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid this discussion getting fragmented, I've replied here. ~~ 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:EmilJ

User added an unsourced news item to Portal:Current events/2009 April 1 which I removed because current event guidelines state "Only list items with news sources; stories without links will be removed." EmilJ then reverted my edit and added a source but said this in the edit summary "OMFG, so find one if you want one, or just read the bloody NATO article" . I have attempted to explain on EmilJ's talk page that he should use a civil tone and assume good faith. Tomdobb (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

After notifying EmilJ of wikiquette alert, he accused me of bullying other editors. Tomdobb (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no real public attack, except perhaps them suggesting you were being a bully. Although the editor in question doesn't fully understand policy, especially as it relates to current events and verifiability, it's better to teach than further scold a fairly inexperienced editor in this case, I believe. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call a user with a few thousand edits dating back to 2004 an inexperienced editor. Tomdobb (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tnaniua

This user has been engaged in content disputes at various Korea-related articles, including Developed country, Goguryeo and Balhae. Unfortunately, he has repeatedly characterized edits that go against his point of view as "vandalism" and in some cases, has (incorrectly) reported them at WP:AIV . Spacepotato (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Tnaniua's page to cease the edit warring and calling good-faith edits vandalism. If he continues, you should report him to WP:ANI as a block will be in order. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nukes4Tots

This user has a long history of abusive and abrasive communication, enggages in edit warring and accuses others of it. S/he didn't like an edit I made, and posted a 3rr notice to my talkpage prior to any violation. I gave him/her the same notice, with an explanation, followed by a discussion of wikiquette. This editor then went to a page which I've long worked on, which s/he has no history with, and accused me (falsely) I've edit-warring there. To tell the truth, the stalking and hounding is to me a mere annoyance, but I have no doubt this user is driving away good contributions. DavidOaks (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the actual edits in question. The (removed) warnings on the user's talk pages are easy enough to spot, but since Nukes4Tots is relatively active as an editor, it would help uninvolved editors greatly if you provide links to the edits so we don't have to look through tons of pages Nukes has edited recently to find what you are referring to. Also, please notify the user in question of this Wikiquette alert. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do, of course, enjoy the tit-for-tat warnings and 3RR filings (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, never tried a diff before; here goes -- the reversion of my edit at Missouri: and the accusation that I was engaged in edit-warring there: Yup, I gave him the same 3RR he gave me, on the same basis. Probably shouldn't have. I just want someone to tell him to note his behavior. It's pretty destructive. DavidOaks (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

David, I believe he's talking about diffs like these, showing you going out of your way to characterize my warnings as harassment: , , , . Really, this user posts something and I revert it. After two more reversions, I stop and warn him as ettiquette requires. I then post on the WP:GUNS project that I'm a member and active editor on and also on another user's talk page, one who has done extensive work on the Lee Enfield article in question. I believe I've been completely above board on this. I checked the user's edit history once and found that he was edit warring on Missouri. I reverted his edit there and re-warned him that he was now edit warring on two articles. Don't know what I could have done differently. I took his edit to the talk page on Lee Enfield and tried to engage him in a meaningful discussion but he bowed out of that discussion and just began edit warring again. Again, I'll leave this up to a judgement call but if you're going to sanction anybody, look at the diffs I provided and then examine the diffs he provided... nuff said. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Thanks for the example (note: the diffs were made functional). DavidOaks (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that deleting material I was placing in response to a suggestion by another editor is a simple reversion. And I think I made quite extensive and civil use of the discussion page. Nor did I characterize your contributions as vandalism, as you did to mine, repeatedly. A grave accusation, and I do confess it brought me close to my temper line, though I tried to restrict myself merely to responding to mischaracterizations. I haven't been at my very best behavior here, for which, I repeat apologies. DavidOaks (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Skywriter

Skywriter was adding OR to And you are lynching Negroes. I, along with several editors, removed the content. Instead of adding a template, I left a message on Skywriter's talk page. My message was not insulting or "preachy", but a reminder to follow WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Skywriter responded with this comment. It contains numerous insults (ex: "you don't know what the hell you are spewing about") and insinuations that I'm a racist. The worst insult is that I think the murdering of black people is a joke. (all this because I removed some OR?...apparently, it's a trend) I asked Skywriter to retract the comment, but to no avail. This user seems intent on slandering and intimidating others with insinuations of racism. My hope is that someone else can get through to her/him. Just because someone has been editing since 2005, doesn't mean they can get away with this kind of uncivil behavior. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 01:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm offended by Skywriter's statement "It is perverse that people like you believe that the lynching of black people is a joke" in relation to this debate. In the United States, accusing someone of being a racist is approximately as vile as accusing someone of being a child molester or a muderer. To make such personal attack over an editorial disagreement is reprehensible. Please note that from the talk page and the edit history that not one but six editors are in disagreement with Skywriter. --Boston (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is a lack of clue and a refusal to "get it." I don't think the user is blatantly incivil as much as he simply doesn't understand the point of the article. The "joke" is really an insult to America, meaning it isn't a "punchline" as much as it is a come-back to criticism of Communism. The Soviets held up the lynching of African Americans not as a point of humor, but rather as a source of shame for America. Skywriter needs to understand that while the lynchings are definitely racist (obviously), the subject of this article, the Russian phrase, is attacking, not joking about those racist acts. I think Skywriter will understand the point of the article better, and why his edits were inappropriate, if he understand this background. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4, I respectfully disagree with part of your analysis. It's not just about Skywriter not "getting it" in relation to this article (note: the insinuations are taking place after more than one article dispute); it's about him/her making extremely insulting statements that go beyond normal personal attacks. I can't believe that an "established editor", especially someone who doesn't know me at all, would say I think people dying is funny. That's the most uncalled for and hurtful thing anyone has ever said to me on WP. The more I think about Skywriter's rude comments and attitude towards others, the more I realize it needs to be addressed immediately. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You very well may be right, and I am not diminishing his personal attacks. I only had this one incident to base my opinion off of after all. He may be a tenditious editor, only there to cause problems and ignore anyone else's opinions. If that is the case, he should be blocked. If he continues to fling racism charges at anyone with whom he disagrees, he should also be blocked. If, however, he realizes his misconception and apologizes for the accusations of racism, I think this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Which happens will now depend on Skywriter. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism is a touchy subject. Perception is a difficult thing to get over. If someone percieves that a specific statement is racist, then it takes great pains to fix that. Until then, the belief will be firmly entrenched. Therefore, anyone who defends the "awful" statement is therefore also a racist, at least until the perception is changed. This is a good example of the ABC model. Until we can show Skywriter that the article is actually not racist (as I have tried to do on their talkpage) then they will believe that any defender of the article is also racist. Change the antecedant, the behaviour will hopefully follow, leading to a new consequence. You're right however, calling someone a racist is one of the most vile and disgusting of personal attacks - let's change the "A" first. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've made some recent edits that hopefully hammer home the fact that criticism of American racism rather than "lynching Negroes, har-dee har, har har" was the original point of the phrase discussed in this article. Since Skywriter has expressed the opinion that the article itself is an "ethnic joke...told at the expense of African Americans" and has no place on Wikipeda, I'm not optimistic these edits will cure this bout of mastadonia but as Theseeker4 said, "(what) happens will now depend on Skywriter." --Boston (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst there are some incivil comments here, editor expressing an opinion about an article is not in itself incivil just misinformed, i think the major issue is a misunderstanding of the project and WP:NOTCENSORED principle. Just because wikipedia contains an article on a subject it doesn't mean that the foundation or any editor endorses it. The article seems to be a russian Matthew 7:3. --neon white talk 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter slandering me is not the result of him/her being misinformed. It's an editor making accusations of racism in an attempt to intimidate people (several people, actually). We all have content disputes at some point, but that doesn't mean we can throw a temper tantrum and claim someone thinks people dying is funny. I might not "get" an article's content, but that doesn't mean I have the right to act the way he did. The fact he won't apologize or retract his comments is the worst part. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gjr rodriguez

This guy is incorrectly adding templates and categories and has been told by multiple editors to stop - he continues to revert these corrections and does not care that people tell him to stop , calling them names in the process - most of the articles he has created are up for deletion due to lack of notability, and a number of people are getting annoyed with him at WT:BASEBALL. No baseball project admins seem to be around, so I am bringing this here. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's late here so I can't stay up to watch this, but i support an (indef or otherwise) block by whoever decides to make one. If there's no block in the morning and no objection to one I'll do it myself. Wizardman 06:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• This probably needs admin attention. Both editors are edit warring here, there is obviously a civility issue with comments made by Gjr rodriguez, however JustSomeRandomGuy32 has a previous blocks for edit warring and made a 1RR agreement which, if still binding has been violated. I've ask the admin (User:Lankiveil) that issued the previous block to comment. Ultimately both editors need to discuss the edits, Gjr rodriguez - If an editor objects to your edits then stop and attempt to gain a consensus. Personal attacks will not help. JustSomeRandomGuy32 - It is simply not enough to continually revert edits saying they are wrong you also need to discuss them. --neon white talk 06:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted - asked him to stop (just check his and my talk pages....) - he said he would continue anyways because he didn't care what I said. He responded to others the same way. He doesn't care that that the template and categories he adds don't belong, even after I tried explaining them to him... I posted on the baseball project page asking for help - found another editor who reverted one edit of his to help (Gjr then insulted him as well and ignored him) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find evidence of any other editor being involved. Ultimately it's content dispute and both editors need to discuss, use further dispute resolution and refrain from reverting until a consensus is clear. A recommend a rfc at the project. If the consensus is to remove the edits and he continues to add them then go to ANI. --neon white talk 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We could nicely deal with incivility, but as you know from the top of the page, if came looking for immediate admin action via blocks, then WP:ANI is the right location (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey

User is exhibiting uncivil behavior, not adhering to AGF, and generally appears to be turning up the rhetoric, when turning it down would be the better course of action to decrease the level of hostility at Barack Obama and its associated talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

An agenda-driven editor stood up on a soap box and claimed I had been editing "improperly" - a lie he has been repeating all over the place. I told him that was bullshit. Furthermore, I regard this as a bad faith alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can we have some diffs? --neon white talk 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a process fork of the Obama Arbcom case here. I have filed an AN/I report here to try to calm the revert warring and incivility on the Obama talk page. ChildofMidnight is indeed a prime offender but that quickly gets to the larger matter under arbitration. Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Gwen Gale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Another editor with clear prejudice against those who don't engage in the community aspect. It is essentially harassment, as can be seen by her actions on this very page.

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#user:_Gwen_Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• NB - This is another scattershot counter-complaint by editor who has unhelpfully decided not to sign comments ("I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to") and is being discussed above. --Boston (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask me or any other admin for semi-protection on mainspace pages disrupted by the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the editor "decided" not to sign? It could be the user just forgot. The real problem is it is a complaint without specifying anything, just general unhappiness with Gwen Gale. Even if there is a real problem, there is no way to know if it belongs here; and it could be the user has been forum shopping. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, in this very thread, the IP says "I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to..." The IP is not forgetting to sign. Moreover, Malcom, I suggest you think more about stopping your own highly disruptive and unhelpful behaviour. If you wish to carry on with a discussion about this, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that Gwen Gale has attacked me for "disruptive and unhelpful behaviour" when I did not have a single word critical of her in my edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution