Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive120

User:Ronnie42

• Ronnie42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Williamsburgland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• List of zombie films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This issue has been brought up on two other notice boards - Admin incidents and Dispute resolution - I am posting this at the advice of a user on the former. The issue I'd like to address here is Ronnie's propensity for calling good faith edits vandalism and accusing users of trolling or slander (I don't know if that qualifies for WP:Legal Threat) - here are two examples of his conduct - 1,2. You can also see the numerous cautions, warnings and bits of guidance he's received (and removed) on his talk page, as well as a comment and reciprocatetive warning he left on my userpage. The user is incredibly difficult to communicate with and seems to ignore the advice, guidance and cautioning of every single user that interacts with him. It seems he's lost interest in the article in question for the time being (he spends the vast majority of his time on talk pages) but I'd like to initiate this discussion none the less. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I had referred Williamsburgland to bring this gentleman here with the hope that it could be communicated to Ronnie42 that his calling every edit that disagrees with him "vandalism" is itself disruptive. The goal is to successfully get him up to speed on proper ways to communicate here, as the only other tool I have at my disposal is the block button, which is still an option if he isn't capable of taking the good advice I know he will get here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ronnie42's communication style is so difficult for me to follow I cannot in good faith consider their comments incivil or simply misguided. As the focal point of friction seems to be the Zombie article/list I'd suggest letting the DRN run its course; hopefully resolving the content will also resolve any civility issues too. Nobody Ent 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• While the Zombie article has been a focal point for me and several other editors, Ronnie's editing history demonstrates general assumption of bad faith, using talk pages as forums and outright vandalism. Whether intentional or not, the vast majority (if not all) of his edits are disruptive and generally uncivil. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zh.Mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• User talk:Zh.Mike

This is a bit troubling coming from an Administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly, is the problem? I didn't warmly thank an editor for attempting to edit-war Soviet propaganda into a featured article? That I didn't blow kisses at him after I tried to explain why this was a problem for over 3 months, and all I got in response were mental gymnastics about how reputable historians are all wrong? I'm sorry, but I will tolerate disruptive behavior from an SPA for only so long. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly, is the problem? The problem is that Wikipedia has well-documented methods to deal with disruptive behavior. You chose to not follow those methods and to instead be uncivil. That was wrong and you know it. No, it is not a major infraction. If I seem to be making a big deal about it it is because you have in essence declared that WP:CIVIL does not apply to you if, in your opinion, the other fellow misbehaved first. Again you know that this is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• If Zh.Mike (talk · contribs) has a Wikiquette concern, shouldn't he be the one to bring it here? Also, with just a quick look, it seems as though this user has more experience than his contribs would indicate. As a "newbie" he certainly jumped into a dispute with both feet here. There, he has referred to other editor's positions or edits as "crap" and "trash". Parsecboy's comment indicated some frustration, but I don't think it was egregiously out of place given the context of the interactions. Taroaldo (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is no rule saying that I cannot raise a Wikiquette issue without being involved. And "He misbehaved first so it is OK for me to misbehave" is not an acceptable defense. I have not yet examined the other editor's posting history, but I have no doubt that his behavior was and continues to be far worse. Nonetheless, we all need to be civil no matter what the other person does. I am also puzzled as to why nobody used Template:Uw-npa1 or Template:Uw-npa2 in response to the "crap" and "trash" comments. The proper response to WP:NPA violations is a series of warnings followed by longer and longer blocks, not being uncivil yourself, yet this user has received no warnings at all. I think you all know that this is not the right way to deal with a disruptive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• To Taroaldo: In my opinion, we should discuss the subject, not the persons. Therefore I did not attract attention to the Parsecboy's behavior. Yes, I am newbie here, but not in real life ;) Although I am a physicist, the history is my hobby - maybe You noticed it therein. About "crap", "trash" and "reputable historians are all wrong". A part of the text is citation of "reputable" historian looks like a "2+2=5". All other historian (not Russians) write that "2+2=4", but I can not fix this mistake - it will be a propaganda! This mistake in the historians' book I have called "crap" and "trash" - it was not the other editor's positions or edits, You may check my comments. In the end, after creation ANI topic, Parsecboy did fix "2+2=4 or 5" and has advised me to go out of here. How would you call this? I ask You to talk about ground of my correction at the this page.
• To Guy Macon: Thank you for your support: my complaint would look like as an inability to defend my point of view without becoming personal - I am not Wiki admin to do like this. I must apologize for using of strong language: to characterize the sentences cited of the book, I used the word "чепуха" and "вздор". This is absolutely literary words and are usable in all situations, even in my children's book. Unfortunately, I chose a unsuccessful synonyms for translation - English is not my native language and I could not determine the nicety. I beg your pardon. --Zh.Mike (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Parrot of Doom

Likes to use expletives and uncivilised terms in his edit summaries etc. An example where he tells someone to "FUCK OFF". Fanzine999 (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah... and you file this report without notifying him... great. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What's "uncivilised" about telling it like it is? And which Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of expletives? Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is already at one forum, WP:AN3 here [1], the term wasn't used against the reporting party, and it was on PoD's own talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Thomas Sowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request on Thomas Sowell, the result came against removing certain material on the page.

Despite this, and despite me explicitly saying this on the talk page (diff)(diff), the material has been removed on essentially no grounds.

Here is Thargor Orlando's reasoning for the removal:

(diff)

As far as I can tell the next step is to have arbitration but I'm not sure if it requires sanctions if someone violates dispute resolution without going into arbitration. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The "dispute resolution noticeboard," for what its worth, does not seem to be binding on anything, and I was not involved with the dispute at that page anyway. There has been a discussion at length on the Sowell talk page that CartoonDiablo had, until today, chosen not to take part in. I am confident this can be resolved by discussion, assuming CartoonDiablo does not simply choose to remove himself from the conflict again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any wikiquette dispute here -- looks like content dispute. Nobody Ent 02:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it's content related but it's in between dispute resolution and arbitration. The question is whether violating dispute resolution without going into arbitration should lead to sanctions putting this either in Wikiquette or abuse. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How about engaging in the discussion at talk instead of threatening other editors with sanctions and arbitration? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably because we did that and then did it again in dispute resolution so now editors are bordering on sanctions by not going to arbitration. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I should add that Thargor has been adding discussions on my page which are clearly done to detract from this process. Specifically: "There's no "Wikiquette" problem, obviously, just a content dispute that needs solving. If you're uninterested in continuing the discussion there, say so and those of us who are trying to improve the article will do so." (diff diff)

I summarized the problem in my last response (diff)CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, someone who monitors this page considers it a content dispute. So let's hash it out at talk so we can move on. Thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DocKino

• GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DocKino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need outside advice about an on-going issue of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:CIVIL. IMO, User:DocKino is bullying his way around the article's talk page and discouraging article improvement. Is this how wikipedia is supposed to work? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• here
• here
• here
• here

Apart from low levels of condescension, not really anything thats particularly bad. I would ignore the remarks to be honest and focus on the content. It barely rates 'petty' on the incivility scale. I suggest since you have it open at DRN you take it forward there as the underlying problem appears to be the content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Incivility, hounding and edit warring

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The Mouse That Roared (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Call Me Bwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Beyond My Ken

After a minor disagreement over an ENGVAR matter, the user Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has subsequently decided to:

• insult me in the edit summary
• When I asked him to remember WP:NPA, his edit summary to "Fuck you asshole" provided unhelpful.
• A number of articles that I have previously edited were then subject to further reversions (see the user's history), followed by forays into edit warring against my edits on:

Secret Servant: The Moneypenny Diaries

Call Me Bwana (including again calling me an asshole in the edit summaries)

OK Connery

Diverticula (mollusc)

Talk:Aston Martin DB5 (Although self-reverted)

Apart from the WP:NPAbreach, there are also worrying signs of a WP:HOUNDing process and a propensity to edit war over inaccuracies. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see this issue here. BMK made himself known to me recently on my Talk page, to point out a mistake I had made on an article. I apologised, and tried to fix the mistake, but not to his satisfaction it seems. I felt that BMK could have been more civil and helpful in the way he raised and handled this matter.

I don't know ShroCat, but he seems to have done a good job in detailing some substantive problems in what he has said above. Is there an Admin who can help to sort out some of the issues he raises please? Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen

• Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Widescreen has been clearly violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:DISENGAGE (diff, diff) and despite being warned about it (diff) has not apologized and generally continues to do it (diff). CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known. --WSC ^® 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nix1129

• Nix1129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GimliDotNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Boromir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive NPOV user, repeatedly ignoring links and discussions. edit is the second time the user has decided to leave insults rather than discussion. Despite being asked [2] to not. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig

• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Obotlig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The BAP Handbook: The Official Guide to the Black American Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:The BAP Handbook: The Official Guide to the Black American Princess (edit | [[Talk:Talk:The BAP Handbook: The Official Guide to the Black American Princess|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• First he calls me an "AFD troll" in an article edit summary.[3] I did ask him to "kindly keep personal insults to yourself". Then on the talk page[4] he links to WP:DNFTT (do not feed the troll) in two responses, then calls me a troll in his final response. Rather uncivilized behavior. Dream Focus 15:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig, at Wikipedia, we have policies, and above those, we have what are called 'pillars'. These are strict non-negotiable policies that all members of the community are expected to abide by. One of these pillars is WP:Civility. While you may strongly disagree on content, making personal attacks or namecalling is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. If you need advice on how to proceed in the debate, please go ahead and ask, but understand that the behavior shown in the above diff records is not in line with our core policies. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just redirected that shortcut for WP:DNFTT to the WP:Civility page. Actually, I think it needs to be MfD'd or PROD'd but it is an inappropriate shortcut in terms of civility. -- Avanu (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 reverted the change I made for that shortcut, suggesting I either leave it or actually MfD it. That has now been done. -- Avanu (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gauge00

• siafu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Benjitheijneb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snuge purveyor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gauge00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Records of the Three Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms

While much of this dispute seems to be inflamed by the apparent language barrier (Guage00 seems to have limited facility with English), there is an ongoing discussion about the range of years covered by the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a classical Chinese work. Gauge00 is convinced that the beginning year in the article, AD 184, is incorrect, and to support his position he has been arguing that the book fails to mention certain events prior to 189 that it "should contain" ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Three different editors (myself included) have pointed out that this is an illogical argument([10],[11],[12]), constitutes original research ([13]), and that wikipedia operates by consesus (see previous diff [14]). Gauge00's response, despite repeatedly admitting that he has not read the source text([15],[16],& others), has been to assert that the particular editor who made the date change in the first place must have been at fault because a previous version said something else ([17], [18]), that his interlocutor's are "incompetant" ([19],[20]) and "stubborn" ([21]), and has also focused on his belief that I'm advocating the consensus position because he believes I'm Chinese ([22] -- for the record, "siafu" is a swahili word). I tried to remind him to WP:NPA twice([23],[24]), but he made no acknowledgement, and continues to argue on the same lines. My personal belief is that this dispute is being fueled both by a lack of familiarity with wikiquette, and a failure in communication due to Gauge00's lack of fluency with the English language, but I honestly don't know how to proceed here. The dispute has not really risen to the level of an edit war, as yet, but could, and I'm hoping that outside help could resolve the situation better than I and others have been (not) able to thus far, and especially some advice on how to deal with editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and with limited command of English would be appreciated. siafu (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On the discussion regarding deletion of a page he created (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms), Guage00 has been extremely hostile, in the discussion and in notes to his edits of the page referring to other editors as "dogs", "dusgusting morons", and "shits". Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody involved has any intention of chastising Gauge00 for his faulty English, but that cannot be used as an excuse for attacking other editors and flaunting self-perceived authority he does not have any right to. Hurling abuse at other editors should not need a wiki page; it's quite simply polite, in any respect, to refrain from insulting others. Benjitheijneb (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there really no assistance available here? Was this a complete waste of time? siafu (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty sad. Why is no admin responding or helping you guys out on this page? 119.224.27.62 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Gauge00 today attacked an IP editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms, where the IP suggested an AfD be created to remove the List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which he created WP:POINT to prove a point from (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms. I have nominated the article for deletion as the IP requested, but Gauge00's continued abuse MUST be dealt with; there is no reason why well-intentioned editors must suffer his self-aggrandising insults. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms for further details. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He's even abusing admins now! Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm just dropping by this page because I want to know more about how to use this forum in the future. I didn't really read through all the diffs but I did get the chance to read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I think that users from both sides should review Wikipedia:Etiquette. Even if a user's post is hurtful it might be best to ignore it and kindly tell the user what you feel without commenting about their behavior or applying the policy guidelines because they may interpret it as an insult and could retaliate by insulting you guys again. If you guys have already done this then I apologize for not reading all the diffs in detail. I'm afraid that your last option should be to going to WP:ANI if no other administrator or editor responds to your posts here.119.224.27.62 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake

• jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very simple. I asked a good faith question on the talk page for MOS:FILM. I received a few replies that disagreed with my inquiry but were not directed toward me, but DarkWarriorblake said I was naive to think that way. I asked for him/her to redact the comment, but I received a cold reply and not even an apology. This type of behavior is contrary to WP:CIVIL as the comment was directed toward me on not on the content of the discussion, as he/she clearly said.."It is naive to think that...", meaning I was naive to think these things. I tried to ask for a redaction but was rebuffed with more incivility, by saying "How you translated that into a personal attack and inferred information suppression is some Back to the Future style time-travel reality warping chicanery."--JOJ ^Hutton 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Having interacted with DWB in the past, occasionally finding him/her to be a bit terse, or even impolite at times, I really feel that this situation does not merit intervention. Perhaps both parties involve could take a deep breath, shake virtual hands and move on? Two pennies, that is all. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And please don't take that as me implying that you aren't allowed to be offended... I'm just asking if this is worth offense. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. I asked for an apology and was tartly rebuked. JOJ ^Hutton 01:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My advice is to just drop it and move on. Ignore the user if possible. Just a suggestion in the future if a similar incident is applied by another user towards you, just ask them politely who was the user referring to as "naive" in a short statement. I don't think that there is any need to tell them that you took it as a personal attack such as "I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal?....Is that an attack of some sort?". Some users may think that you're making direct accusations or taking their posts out of context and they may feel intimidated so they could retaliate and insult you back to defend themselves because they don't appreciate being misunderstood. I know this wasn't your intent though and I understand what you really meant but remember that when you're online some people might interpret other people's words differently. I'm pretty sure DWB didn't mean to insult you either and may not be aware that others could find his/her own post as uncivil. Remember to follow the Dealing with incivility #4: Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm. I hope that my suggestion helps :-) 119.224.27.62 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Areaseven

Material has been voluntary taken off the user talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Areaseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Areaseven (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) A while back, Areaseven and I had some minor disagreements over some article content (mainly images), a wrong button hit, and a patronizing comment he made towards me. Early last month, I discovered that Areaseven had retained a comment I made on his talk page months ago where I used wording that he construed as racist (my response to the previous diff). When I discovered this fact (despite the fact that he removes everything else that ever makes it onto his talk page), and also had added commentary. As he had refactored my original post, I removed his comment along with a harsh word, but then left a comment unrelated to that issue. He then reverted me. In any attempt I made to explain myself, Areaseven ignored it and continued to fail to assume any sort of good faith on my part. After a long and heated discussion with him, he removed everything I said from his page and I avoided dealing with him after leaving this final message where I attempted to end the dispute, which he reverted 2 minutes after I pressed save. The other day, I attempted to extend an olive branch, once more, and request that Areaseven write some content before another less experienced editor did. After refusing, Areaseven proceeded to add back every discussion we had. My inquiry into this behavior was ignored and Areaseven instead added his own commentary to year old occurences. Areaseven continues to fail to assume any good faith on my part, whether it be from accidentally hitting the "rollback (vandal)" link instead of the "undo" link, from an unintentional combination of words that he has latched onto as being a racist remark, or feeling referring to an action of multiple image uploads as "overboard" is a slight against him. I understand that he has some personal choice over its content, but at this point he is just being spiteful in keeping his consistent misconstrued opinions over what I've said to him. I will admit that conversations between myself and Areaseven delved into incivility, but there is no reason he should enshrining the discussions he and I have had to mock me. Also I've posted here, because the last time I posted to WP:ANI regarding a similar situation, I was told it was not meant for that board. If I'm incorrect, again, please move this and tell me where it's gone to.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Just to ignore the problem and the user per WP:DENY. If the editor wants to reject an olive branch or do something childish on their usertalk, let them, it only reflects badly on them and not you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) But clearly Areaseven should not be allowed to retain this content in a means to spite me.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Just wondering, what do you want to get out of this? - Areaseven (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC) First and foremost, I want you to undo your "Never Forget." edit (and related edits). And I would like to end this unnecessary hostility between us. I am sorry that I have been uncivil towards you, but that is only because I have not once received any sort of civility from you in any of our discussions that I can recall or that I found while writing this up.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Fine. Consider this a truce. - Areaseven (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)