Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive120

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 20 July 2012 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


User:Ronnie42

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


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


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


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)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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)

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)

Fairlyoddparents1234 v. DreamMcQueen: Edit warring


Hello there. I am currently involved in a dispute with User:DreamMcQueen. I have added a link to CBS Television Stations to List of CBS television affiliates (table) after where it says "This list does not include independent stations or stations affiliated with The CW". I am not sure why, but he decided to remove it, citing redundancy as an explanation. What makes me concerned is the fact that he has not yet removed such links from List of NBC television affiliates (table) (for Telemundo O&Os) and List of Fox television affiliates (table) (for MyNetworkTV O&Os), all three which I have added. To make matters worse, he sometimes deliberately leaves the edit summary field blank. I have attempted to revert my edits until I decided to give up and report this, on account of the policy WP:3RR. Also, for List of ABC television affiliates (table), he has been repeatedly removing the designated market area from the O&O list, even though I still kept it in alphabetical order (see edit history). He reverts my edit. I revert back again. I recently had the article put on a one-week edit lock. What concerns me is that there would be consensus at the TV station WikiProject before the DMA's could be removed from article lists. There WAS a discussion, but it was NOT supposed to affect affiliate lists of the "Big Six". Apparently, DreamMcQueen is not part of the project. In addition, the NBC, FOX and CBS (oh wait, he stripped the DMAs off the CBS table too) have not been affected yet. This has made me think that he is effectively attempting to claim article ownership; clearly a violation of "Da Rules". In addition, I am starting to be concerned about his edits in general, as it seems he is abusing the vandalism marker. In my personal opinion, I think he should begin to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines here. If he does not comply, I think it's safe to declare him a vandal. Further problems with this issue and it's headed for the RFC noticeboard. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It is best that you refrain from constantly applying policies and guidelines towards this user's post as it may be interpreted as a personal attack where the user will just ignore it and take it as an insult. Also your tone of language at the user's talk page such as saying "Piss me off via edit war or any other method and I WILL IMMEDIATELY REPORT YOU TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AT ALL MEANS!!!!!!! You've been warned. And don't you even dare respond to this at my talk page. Don't you dare get me hot or else you will find yourself hanged above the flames of WP Admin Hell!" will definitely not help get your own point across this user at all so I'd advise that you review the Wikipedia:Civility so that in the future conflicts like this won't happen anymore. Remember that the more civil you post the easier it will be for administrators and other editors to help you both resolve your differences and carry a proper discussion.119.224.27.62 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I have already tried to be civil to him, but he keeps making the problem worse. Besides, I have tried WP:DRN, but he wouldn't get in the discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. Just remember to be civil at all times. If the user insults you next time, just ignore the insulting parts of the comment even if its hard not to and focus on what is the user's point. If that doesn't work then put then you can finally take the problem to either WP:DRN or WP:ANI where the administrators can take action(such as what had happened here). The easier it is to identify who is more civil the faster it will be for other's to help you out. Anyways it seems like the problem has died down now and an admin had already helped you so that's great progress. Well done. :-) 119.224.27.62 (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – referred to ANI Nobody Ent 02:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon is following me around in talk pages, where I participate in on topic discussions, and follow my comments with off topic negative comments related to me and to other discussions:

Regards. --Nenpog (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping to be able to agree with Guy on this. Proper process for dealing with a person who is alleged to be interfering with WP:Consensus process (like forum shopping) is to notify an administrator. Typically, this would be at AN/I. Guy is advised to follow that process.
Please do keep in mind that if you don't get a consensus at one place, you should try to avoid hopping around until you get what you want. In many cases there is an escalation process, and its possible that you are trying to use that process, although it appears Guy doesn't see it that way. I haven't bothered to read the specifics of this, but please honor consensus, or come up with a novel argument and re-argue the dispute. If you feel like people simply aren't listening, feel free to ask for advice on how to approach it next, but don't try to win by taking something to 10 different places. Nenpog is advised to follow this process. -- Avanu (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked at the links and do not see a wikiquette issue. It is standard procedure to use the contributions list provided for each user to see whether any follow up to an issue is warranted. The way to respond would be to address the substance of the claims made by Guy Macon, preferably on one talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • OP appears to be forum shopping; nothing wrong with Guy Macon pointing this out. Nobody Ent 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people though. At this point, if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it, not pushed into discussions as a poison pill. -- Avanu (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Above you say you haven't read the specifics, and now you think it's hounding? While supporting editors is great, some judgment is required to choose which side of a disagreement should be supported. I looked at the links, and there is no hounding—as I mentioned, it is an entirely standard procedure and it appears highly appropriate in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
What I meant is that I didn't read the specifics of whether Nenpog was "in the right" in going to all these forums. What I can easily see, however, is that Guy is putting a fairly similar set of notices in each place. If Nenpog is forumshopping, there are places for recourse, specifically AN/I is one example. -- Avanu (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you withdrawing your statement suggesting that Guy Macon is hounding another editor?
If not, some evidence should be provided very soon.
Anyone with a large number of comments at noticeboards should be aware that people at ANI are tired of every little problem being taken there—it's up to people participating in the community to sort out what they can. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've given my advice on this, in fact, I was first, so lay off, relax, and read what I said, or don't, your choice. If you have a particular problem with the word 'hound', please point out exactly what *I* meant by it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to comprehend how an experienced editor could imagine that it is acceptable to imply that a named editor is hounding another editor. From WP:WIAPA, "What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". This is a noticeboard, not a 101 Philosophy course where we discuss whether "hound" has an intrinsic meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's no benefit to Wikipedia to hash out exactly what noun (gerund?) is most appropriate to describe GM's behavior. Posting a notice at the various forums that the edits where in response to a particular situation was a reasonable thing to do. Starting an ANI thread is a legitimate alternative. Personally I think GMs action was the less inflammatory course of action to take. Nobody Ent 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, maybe you could point out exactly where I said that Guy Macon is hounding anyone? Please go read what I actually said which was "Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people". Followed by "if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it". So, again, relax, stop looking for additional problems, and focus on the issues brought before us here and the two editors involved. Have a great day. P.S. Although I agree with Nobody Ent's comment about this possibly being the less inflammatory approach, we find ourselves here now, and so he should decide whether to continue the method that brought us here, or take it to AN/I. Wouldn't you agree? -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think ya'll should just agree to disagree and take no further action. Nobody Ent 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be best if Guy and Nenpog could figure out an amicable way to relate going forward. I don't think AN/I wants to see a post where Nenpog has to report Guy, and I doubt Nenpog wants the reverse. I went ahead and read through a bit more of the debates. Nenpog sounds like a person with a very deep understanding of X-Ray technology and seems to be well received in the discussions. Obviously something led to Nenpog going to outside forums for review and advice, but just as Johnuniq says above, if we're going to make a claim, we should back it up. EdJohnston said Nenpog seemed "to be eager to draw attention to the risks of ionizing radiation to the patient" and advised him to "negotiate patiently on the talk page to see if you can reach agreement with the others". I can't say for sure how much of that has happened, but following an editor from page to page and putting up a 'disclaimer' is not a valid approach to consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to be staying closed I'll respond instead. I am not involved in this dispute and don't know all of the background. What I do know is what I observed at COIN and on IRC: Nenpog has been consistently pushing his views on the wiki on multiple noticeboards/locations etc, including IRC. On #wikipedia-en IRC for example, related to this dispute, he joined the channel to argue that being a doctor in a hospital that has a CT scanner is a conflict of interest. He also tried to argue beyond what was reasonable about basing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims off an unreliable source as well. The level of reliable sources required for this exceptional claim just don't exist. He appears unable to accept any of the responses or points made against his point and continues on, a case of WP:IDHT. It's also clear the content is just not going to go into the article and the consensus is against it, he should drop the WP:STICK and walk away. Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to respond to these not related allegations? Why not related? Because it is clear from reading my posts, to which Guy Macon has uniformly replied, that each post of mine was about a separate subject. One was about the operational procedures of the COIN, one was about the MEDRS rules, one was about if simple logic is a synthesis, and one was about due weight. Two of these discussions were opened by other people, and I have only joined them and responded to the discussion. Guy Macon came, and has put there his message, that is not even related to the topic being discussed.
IRWolfie joined the discussion here and claimed, well yes, but this is all justified because I am a non related person, that don't know the background, but trust me that I know these non related facts, that prove that Nenpog is the bad guy here, and so he deserves to be followed around with a disclaimer, so that all the other innocent editors will be careful, and this is my own disclaimer here, to warn you of that bad guy, and to remind you, that even if this is not fair, he deserves it. Does this sum it up close enough to what you meant IRWolfie?--Nenpog (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that before Nenpog accused me of uncivil behavior he accused me (without evidence) of having an undisclosed conflict of interest. I would have ignored that -- if you volunteer at WP:DRN you will get a few false accusations from disputants -- but he also accused another editor who, like me, chooses to reveal his true name and who is an Emergency Room Physician in Canada. That is totally acceptable behavior.

This started as a content dispute on Talk:X-ray computed tomography where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached WP:DRN.
He was then blocked for edit-warring and tendentious editing.[25][26][27]
He then started Wikipedia:Forum shopping, taking his dispute to:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine,
Talk:Ionizing radiation,
Wikipedia talk:No original research,
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard,
User talk:Elen of the Roads,
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard,
Wikipedia talk:No original research (Second time, in a different section),
At least one IRC channel (I don't follow IRC),
And now he is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. I have no intention of reporting Nenpog at AN/I or anywhere else, for the simple reason that his behavior is not harming me. I considered ignoring the behavior, but Nenpog has wasted a large amount of other editor's time time in a large number of places, so I decided that I would simply post a short, fact-based explanation of where he has been with this previously each time his forum shopping takes him to a new noticeboard and not comment after that. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The only place in which you haven't comment 'after that' was the NOR talk page, and that is so probably only because you didn't have time to, as your first comment there was made recently in the last day.
BTW, at the NPOV talk page one of the editors responded to Guy with "Cannot fully agree. Nenpog has asked quite a legitimate question"Paul Siebert and then Guy's friend started talking about wolves, and naturally Paul Sibert wondered "What do you mean under "virtual wolves" in this particular case?"Paul Siebert. And I ask too, what do wolves has to do with a discussion about due weight, and what all of the above has to do with someone following me around and posting off topic content where it doesn't belong. I don't get it. --Nenpog (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have split the fresh disclaimer of Guy from the NOR discussion into a subsection, as it was not related, in accordance with WP:TALKO sectioning. Guy have undone that split, and accused me of POV pushing that his disclaimer is off topic. Seems like at this point Guy Macon still think that his disclaimer is in its proper place. --Nenpog (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You wasted my time at WP:NOR after repeatedly being given perfectly good answers elsewhere. I fully approve of that notice there to give the background to what your query was about. My guess is you will eventually be blocked indefinitely as you don't seem to be able to drop the stick. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq, you claim that I was given a good answer to the question ("Is simple logic a SYNTH?"), that was asked at the NOR elsewhere. Please supply a diff of the good answer given elsewhere. --Nenpog (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe [28] a month ago is about the earliest saying essentially that to you. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't an answer to whether simple logic is a synth. --Nenpog (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You said 'This is not original research. CT inflict ionizing radiation on patients, and ionizing radiation cause adverse effects' and were responded to with ' When you use a source which does not explicitly mention the article's subject that is WP:SYNTH'. That was pretty clear about you basing the insertion on simple logic and a person telling you it was SYNTH and not admissable under the original research policy and they pointed you at the relevant place which explains it in more detail. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that that person wrote nothing about simple logic, and gave me an advice that is in line with use of simple logic: "I think that the way to post this is to provide a source which states the range of radiation to which CT machines expose patients, then state that range and reference a source which says what happens at that range."Blue Rasberry. There was no suggestion that I would find an answer in the WP:SYNTH section, as WP:SYNTH was used as a noun ("that is WP:SYNTH"Blue Rasberry). A referral was given to the WP:PRIMARY section, which doesn't include anything discussing logic. The claim that the source must explicitly mention the article's subject was not accompanied by any quote from any policy. For staying on topic, I didn't include here arguments that show that following the links to the mentioned WP:terms wouldn't have provided me with an answer to the question, since that is not relevant to the current question, of whether I have gotten an answer to the simple logic question by Blue Rasberry, and I think that what I wrote proves that I haven't.
Do you have an other diff, that you think is a good answer given elsewhere?--Nenpog (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No matter how many times Nenpog is told that he is wrong, he won't listen. In regards to Nenpog's latest complaint, he put my comment into a separate section which he labeled "Guy Macon's disclaimer" while putting his comments and the other responses into a new "Main discussion" section. I reverted with the comment "Nenpog, stop modifying or moving comments that are critical of you in order to push your POV that they are 'off topic' or in any other way not replies to the comment above them." he ignored that edit comment as he ignored Dmcq's response to his complaint above -- more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Funny that you come up with WP:ICANTHEARYOU that fits your behavior. Did you hear Avanu comments btw? Do you think that you are being civil? You once wrote that if anyone find your behavior not civil they should tell you. Consider yourself told. --Nenpog (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette violation in summary


I created the Syria Files article and Lihaas added quickly some tags: notability, original research. I added more references easily, it is an event covered in mainstream media (hundreds of news in Google News). Soon, I was reverted again by Lihaas and he wrote this comment in my talkpage. After other users removed the tags he put in Syria Files, I noticed him the changes. He has named my comment as "nonsense" and deleted it. I don't delete his comments using that summaries, so I prefer he doesn't do it. Regards. emijrp (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i was perfectly polite in asking him, and he responds aggressively and starts to revert things on my talk page (that was undone by others). [29]. Im entitled to withdraw stuff from my talk page, as is anyone.
"You should not delete the comments of other editors" shows a misunderstanding of WP policies. His inclusion of the other editors who reverted him on my talk page is more deceptive as theyre not involved in anything. Only points to WP:BOOMERANG
At any rate, tag removals require discussion per BRD as i politely requested. This wasnt done. And a discussion is ongoing on that page. Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure Lihaas could improve his way of dealing with other editors, but in this case, "nonsense" was a description of Lihaas' opinion of the edit, not of the editor. It's not unduly rude. Further, the comment that Lihaas put on Emijrp's talk page was completely unproblematic - it was a request to discuss and not edit war. (Although I have no idea what the smiley at the end of it was trying to imply). From the diffs given above, Lihaas is only at 1RR on the article page itself. Emijrp is at 2RR on Lihaas' talk page - Emijrp seems to have misunderstood what it says on WP:TPO. Lihaas was being slightly aggressive on the article and dismissive of Emijrp's disagreement, but the problems are not as described in the complaint. Both editors should go away and discuss it politely on the article talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Smiley to make thing slighthearted in case it was construed as aggressive.
But i did starta talk page discussion at said page. Though i handled well not perfect, but wellLihaas (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It is best to avoid being so harsh when you are deleting talk page sections. You can simply remove them with "archiving" for example. Alternatively you can just leave them, or archive in bulk. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, deleting a talk page section with the edit summary "archiving" might be considered misleading, if one did not actually intend to archive the material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, it can be just deleted without a message. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Okey , will doLihaas (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Wasnt with that reason and that wasnt the issue. All respondents here siaid that it wasnt a fault as the OP suggested.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the the edit history for the edit summary that preceded mine. There are quite clarly 2 sides to a coin if you see that other summary. At any rate, weve already been discussing resolution and solved it ourselves. Quick and easy
Please dohn't stalk my edits.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Careful with that accusation. I have your talkpage watchlisted because of your disruptive editing in the past. (Well before this incident.) I don't stalk your edits, nor have any need to.
I do think you should make an ongoing effort to be more careful with edit summaries when removing comments from your own talk page (which you do still have every right to do, although archiving is recommended). But otherwise, I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia is turned off

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Nobody Ent 19:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Dear Sirs,

I've made a donation to You recently because I like Wikipedia project very much.

You have blocked Russian part of Wikipedia, so I can not use it.

Do You think that it is honestly? Do You think that it is right when someone who asked for your help says You: “I don’t wanna see You anymore and I don’t wanna talk to You anymore because You live in the bad country, but if You want make some donation You are welcome!”

I don’t need those donated money. I hope that it will help You to develop Wikipedia project. I just want to hear an answer to my question.

My e-mail: (Redacted)
Best regards, Alex

The Russian Wikipedia apparently has decided to suspend operation temporarily to protest against a law that would impede internet freedom and its own operation. This is not the first nor the only time this happend. The English language Wikipedia shut down this January for a day to protest against SOPA and PIPA, two similarly bad laws in the US. I don't read Russian, but I assume this also is a temporary measure based on local consensus. Indeed, a short session with Google Translate lead me here, which seems to confirm this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We did not block Russian Wikipedia. They blocked themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Assuming its using the same method, disable Javascript in your browser and it will work fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Constantly being following around Wikipedia with Uncivil intents about my actions.

Users involved

Articles/pages/diffs involved

Description

(Please note: The story is actually long. I admit that I should've gone here earlier but I'm just going to get to the main points. The users involved(including myself) will post the other parts, diffs and other articles involved later when we all have time.)

This began when I nominated the Ell & Nikki article for deletion by mistake because the AfD didn't become the discussion I planned. I gave several points but got very little replies or input from users other than being told about WP:Notability guidelines. They didn't really comment much about the I point made but instead focused on posting about why the article shouldn't be deleted. After the discussion was closed prematurely due to a snowball keep I was thinking of asking the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open it with the hopes of getting other Wikiproject users involved but it was rejected. I figured that if I just ask a question regarding my point rather than re-opening the AfD I would get the answer that I am looking for. However I started to panic when these two users (BabbaQ and CT Cooper) followed me here. I later discovered that BabbaQ has been notifying Wesley Mouse about my activities and questioning my intents. This is when it became a big problem. I got extremely worried about this so I left a note on this page. But their replies gave me the feeling that they were ganging up on me. I made replies that could've have violated several policies and guidelines. I think this was because I've never been in a position before where I've been completely misunderstood and this really hurt me and made me feel frustrated. In particular, Wesley Mouse mentions that I was being negative in the AfD. Something that I completely disagreed with and it really hurt me when that user told me this. I later decided to drop the argument because it was just going nowhere. This is what I just think.

After some users suggested that I should do a merger here and I took this suggestion to the talk page of the article in question more arguments erupted. It ended when Wesley Mouse gave me a kindly written letter on my talk page asking me to put my merger proposal on hold for now. I respected his letter so I agreed. I decided to move on, editing other articles, and going through several guidelines and policies here in Wikipedia so that I could handle this problem more easily in the future. During the course of that time I still had doubts and I asked for Editor's assistance if whether or not it is safe to propose a mergerhere Just yesterday, they(BabbaQ, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) managed to find me there. I went through their talk pages and once again suspicions about my intents have been aroused. I'm not sure how they managed to find the page but my only guess is that wthey've got my talk page on their watch list and recently a user left a comment which may have notified them of my recent activities and went through my contributions to check on what I am up to. Then notified each other of my page.

Certain points that I am failing to understand with these users?

  • Implies that the article meets WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E therefore my suggestion is unnecessary.
  • Believes that a clear consensus had already been reached on the AfD to Keep the article. Therefore, doing a merger proposal would be going against this consensus and could be a violation of policies and guidelines.

Why do I disagree with these points?

  • I disagree because according to Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline...This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
  • I believe that consensus was only to Keep the article including its information in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that its content or information is protected from being merged to other articles. I do respect the consensus and I am not trying to wipe out Ell & Nikki's evidence/existence in this site but according to this page here:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."

Main point

  • I believe that Ell & Nikki's article is unlikely to be expanded in the future because it only covers their participation and involvements together at the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Therefore it is best to merge it into the "Running Scared". Besides we already have separate articles about each of the duos Nigar Jamal and Eldar Gasimov.
  • After both events ended, Nigar Jamal and Eldar Gasimov have not released anymore material together as a group. They have just released their solo materials separately and done separate endeavors. They may have been involved in some more group activities together but these are not really outside their Eurovision Song Contest involvements. This gave me some doubts that Ell & Nikki was just formed for the purpose of participating in the contest and performing/presenting the song. They were merely an official group but just a collaboration between two singers(eg. Kanye West & Jay-Z, Brandy & Monica), and Rock 'n' Roll Kids).

I am feeling really scared right now. I feel like my experience here in Wikipedia will never be the same again after my encounter with these users because I am constantly being followed and my contributions are being taken out of context. I am also worried that they will report me and get my account banned in Wikipedia which I do not wish to happen. Can someone please help us get into an understanding? Thanks Bleubeatle (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite a lot here to read for a speedy response to be made, and the time here in the UK is just gone midnight. I find the entire thing to be perplexed and being taken way out of context than what was actually said. Nevertheless, I shall be courteous and delay my want of sleep so that I can respond to this accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of what is cited above is a month old and I thought that some kind of mutual agreement had been reached to move on. We have long past the point here in which it is reasonable to request that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I understand that you felt others were "ganging up on" you, but you choose to make some serious accusations about other users, and a defensive response was justified. As for this "following around" issue, I think we've had this conservation. If a person starts a discussion about other users or issues to which they are involved, you should expect them to find out and comment on what you have said about them. If this was users following you round commenting on multiple unrelated topics, I would see the point, but as it stands I don't. There is no right under policy for users to demand that others don't find out or don't partake in a discussions, to which they are a party, on a public noticeboard or project talk page - this is an open and collaborative project, and a person's contributions list is public for reason. Bleubeatle's other complaint here seems to that of disagreement in a content dispute, which is fine, but this page is not for resolving content disputes. CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
CT, since you are listed as one of the involved users, could you be more specific on what you feel "some kind of mutual agreement" means? It sounds rather vague to me. If you could be specific, we might be able to see if this could be agreed on by all parties here. -- Avanu (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I have read this entirely, and have pre-written an in-depth response covering every little grain of sand detail thoroughly. There is quite a lot though, so would you like me to post it in its entirety, or in segments? I'm happy either way. Wesley☀Mouse 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The time now is 2:45am, so I'm off to bed as I'm absolutely knackered and I have a busy schedule in the morning. If there are any questions/comments that require my attention, then please could you leave a notice on my talk page, so that I can read them when I get a spare moment tomorrow. In the meantime, if you wish to read my pre-written response (which is very lengthy), then it can be accessed here. G'night all - Wesley☀Mouse 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I can only say that the title of this discussion is the basis of the problem. Bleubeatle throws accusations around and also stated that its not OK for us to respond to posts which are directed at us which is very odd. My main concern has been that Bleubeatle seems unwilling/unable to let the matter go for the moment or at best discussing it rationally. When given a response which isn't in line with Bleubealtes own opinions he/she either simply ignores and asks the same question again or acts like he/she doesnt understand the reply. On the question of merging I am under the impression that a majority of the responses Bleubeatle has recieved has been in favour of Keeping all three article such as the AfD on the matter and also most responses on talk pages. And still the user keeps bringing the matter up and that is where it gets trickier. Bleubeatle has the right to start new threads etc, but now it seems like the user is not following several users good faith suggestion that the user waits too ask about the Ell & Nikki possible merger for awhile and let the matter cool down. I find that a bit offensive that the user doesnt wait a while for it all to cool down, is it the users intention to stir up emotions or? I dont know. The title of this section is offensive in itself and shows that the user is unwilling to compromise on the matter. My other opinions can be found on the several sections Bleubeatle has started all over the Wikipedia about the Ell & Nikki merger. And I am not willing to respondany further and waste my precious time on this matter which has been kept alive by Bleaubeatle for over a month now. This is my only comment on this section. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would like to know how we can be accused of having "uncivil intents", when the accuser kept on telling people who disagreed with their opinions, to "leave conversations" such as 1, 2, and 3, are just a few examples of such remarks. The accuser also admitted to being uncivil himself towards BabbaQ, which can be seen in this diff, and in the same comment he took other's comments entirely out of context. In this diff Bleubeatle made false accusations about myself, in saying I had informed Bleubeatle that BabbaQ wanted to "fight". I had never said such remarks, and fail to comprehend how Bleubeatle came to the conclusion that I had made such a statement. But that very same diff, also shows one of the numerous occasions that the user has redacted their own comments shortly after someone had responded to his original comments, thus making it look that the responders where making no sense in their remarks. What would possess a user to do that, unless there were hidden intentions? Nevertheless, everyone (as far as I am aware) assumed good faith in Bleu's unknown reasons for redactions.

I find the fact that some people are being accused of "stalking", when this has never been the case. As I am the main editor of the Project newsletter, I have every member on my watchlist, so that I can make sure the EdwardsBot had delivered the newsletter to everyone without any technical glitches. Is this the wrong thing to do? Also, Bleubeatle keeps on stating that everyone questioned his intentions to have an article deleted, and that he never had any such inclinations to have an article deleted to begin with. If that be the case, then why would someone with no intent to have anything deleted, proceed with a nomination of deletion? Surely that is evidential enough to show that every action and comment being posted in regards to the deletion was premeditated with intent.

Then we come to the points that Bleu has raised in bullet-points above. Every single one of those points where originally asked in the AfD, and everyone who voted to keep, explained to Bleu that he had misunderstood the guidance on WP:BIO1E, informing him that those guidelines where for events and not living persons. The same people also pointed out that WP:BLP1E would be the correct guidance to look into. Providing the correct page link was an act of goodwill, and in the assumption that Bleu was unaware of that page. However, following the snowball closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki, Bluebeatle went on what can only be described as a canvassing exercise posting the same questions and directly/inadvertently naming users on talk pages Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), Talk:Ell & Nikki, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and more recently Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests; also accusing an editor of barnstar misuse in regards to the AfD debate. Blatantly going around various pages casting false accusations about other editors is by far more uncivil, and from reading the original comment before the user redacted their own words, again, then it is no wonder that people would start to have suspicions about why someone who is generally quiet and reserved, would start to behave in such a condescending manner. Anyhow, I have clearly written a lengthy response here as it is, so I shall pause for now, and am willing to answer any further questions in due course. Wesley☀Mouse

I am also somewhat frustrated that this has been dug-up yet again, since I have a lot better things to do with my time. I am however happy to answer questions, and what I meant by "some kind of mutual agreement" was closing comments made on the discussion at WT:EURO, in which Bleubeatle stated amidst some problematic comments, that he wouldn't reply any more, in which I interpreted to mean that he was going to drop the issue, for which I was happy to do. Bleubeatle however instead starting more threads on the subject, sometimes in inappropriate places such as WT:ATA, and usually containing at least some kind of questionable statement about what other editors had done or said.

What Bleubeatle needs to understand is that when you propose something and consensus doesn't go your way, you let the issue die and move on, even if you are not personally satisfied with the reasoning - you don't forum shop by starting lots more threads until you get the answer you want. Starting one or at most two more threads on a subject might be defensible depending on the circumstances, but the level to which Bleubeatle took it was way past what was acceptable.

There is clearly a lot of emotion in the above comments by Bleubeatle, which I see as unjustified for the situation he actually faced - for instance nobody has called for him to be banned before now. As I've said before, his earlier comments stating "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" do come back to haunt him here. Bleubeatle needs to learn that editing a collaborative project such as this does involve receiving criticism and dealing with disagreement, and he needs to learn to handle such events appropriately, and not respond with extreme emotion or unjustified allegations about "questioning my intent" or the like, which can and did in this case, make things worse. Finally, and most importantly of all, Bleubeatle needs to realize that his actions have consequences. It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project, and that such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is not going to be put-up with indefinitely. I have repeatedly tried to explain to Bleubeatle where he is going wrong, but such efforts have failed so far. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if I explain that situation now. I have to say that what you've said in WP:EURO actually hurt me: "I am offering no apologies, and expect few others will either, as I don't think I or anyone else has committed any real offence here." Afterwards you started making corrections about my posts but I don't think that you even realized how much frustration I was going through after my posts were taken out of context by Wesley Mouse. That gave me the impression that you were belittling me and that actually hurt. I know that may not have been your intention but if you wanted to help me then you could've at least been more cautious with your replies and showed some sign of understanding about my feelings. I felt that if I retaliated further then it would only make this discussion much more worse so I decided to leave and tell you that "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel". That may not have been the reply that you intended to hear but I was pretty much hurt about what you've written. In another talk page you even stated that what I said in regards to those comments: "may come back to haunt him here." and to me that felt like a threat and made me question if you were even trying to help. I think you should just be more careful with your replies and think about how it can actually make people feel. Also maybe you could try and understand what situation they are going through in the discussion first before focusing on what they've written wrong? Anyways I have actually already learned a lot from that incident when I read through it again and I will make sure that I don't make anymore replies like that in the future. I just hope that this Wikiquette assistance page will help clear things for all of us and I hope that you understand what I've said in this paragraph regarding my conversation with you at the WP:EURO discussion page.Bleubeatle (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have only just noticed this part been sneakily added midway as if intended to be unnoticed. Firstly, to accuse me of taking your posts out of context is a blatant lie. You know fully well that I never once took a comment of yours out of context. If there was something that made no sense, then I always asked you to further explain. To come out with such a lie like that you are actually belittling me. You then accuse CT Cooper of "correcting your posts". Cooper has never corrected any of your posts, it is known that Cooper is fully aware of WP:TALK, so again a second lie. And on the subject of Cooper's comments, you state he posted "may come back to haunt him here." on a different page!? I see no other page other than this one where that comment has been posted. Then you tell us that we should've been "more cautious with your replies and showed some sign of understanding about my feelings" - yet in every other post you have made you state that you never told us about how you was feeling. We have even told you that you should have made your feelings known so that people could have been more sensitive towards you. So you have literally contradicted yourself there. To leave comments such as "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" are clearly uncivil, and you would have known that as you have in a round-about way confirmed this. You know as an established editor to always assume good faith, and to assume the assumption of good faith - both of these had been pointed out to you several times, and you stated you knew about those policies. So no matter how upset you may have felt, it didn't give you the right to be uncivil towards another editor by using such remarks. A proverb that is well known is "treat those how you expect to be treated in return", so if you are to treat people uncivilly, then you should expect to get the same treatment back. Everyone was courteous and explained/answered every question you asked in a civil manner. By repeating the same questions on near enough every talk page possible, caused people to wonder why you were behaving in such an unusual manner. People, even uninvolved editors, asked you why you was repeating posts, and advised you to let things drop. Instead of taking their advice, you continued on a rampage of nuisance repetitive thread posting. Anyhow, a proposal has been made below, which 3 of the 4 involved users appear to support. So the sooner this draws to a closure, the better. Then I can get back to stressing over the Olympics (which are 14 days away now). Wesley Mouse 16:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Before I reply to any details regarding the posts above me here I just want to start off my saying that the user I found the most difficult to communicate with was BabbaQ. I first encountered this user when I first proposed the article for deletion. The user objected and told me about it on my talk page. Later on after the AfD ended and while I was asking for the non-admin user who closed it for re-opening, the user began following on this pagepage. I have also noticed that for most of the time, the user has always been constantly the other two users(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) of my actions on each other's talk pages as seen on some of these diffs: [1][2][3][4]. From my observations, this may explain why the other two users have followed me around Wikipedia ever since. During the discussion that I opened on this page, the user became disinterested and rude when after many agreed that the article should be merged instead. A user noticed this behavior. I also noticed it on the article's talk page when I tried to converge with the user here. The user even tells me that "its a fight you are unlikely to win unfortunately" and "are you sure you are not looking for proof?. Im out of this discussion. Its over and done.". The user clearly opposes anything being done on the article whether it is deleting or merging and doesn't want anymore or anyone to discuss about it in the future. That kind of behavior should stop because other users may find this rude and will not lead to a proper discussion. From my observation, the user seems to be trying to gather support to prevent the inevitable from happening and that is by arousing suspicions about my contributions on these two users'(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) talk pages. The user needs to realize that is not a battleground and that winning is not everything. Also I believe that the user has rejected all signs of neutrality and peace as shown on these diffs:[1], [2], [3],[4] and [5].Bleubeatle (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I will probably give another statement like this paragraph for the other two users later on if it is needed. Just reading through some of the paragraphs above, I have to tell you all that I already understand most the things that you've said. What needs to change is your approach and your posts towards users like myself. You may think that you could be doing something right but sometimes it can hurt people as well. No one in Wikipedia enjoys being bossed around. I'm pretty sure neither of you do. Sometimes you need to take a break and have a good look at your own posts. You should be more careful with what you write and understand that not everyone communicates the same way you do. Besides this is the internet. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, BabbaQ has never been rude in any of his comments. He, like any other editor on Wikipedia, is entitled to put across his opinion in regards to article related matters, whether it be creations, change in policies, deletions etc, it is what is known as building a consensus, gathering data etc. If any editor, and not just BabbaQ, wishes to oppose something then they are perfectly within their rights to tell someone why they oppose it and provide reasons for that. If everyone was to just agree to everything, then we might as well not hold any form of democratic discussions, and scrap any such discussion boards all together.
Secondly, what you need to realise here is that if you go to other talk pages and start slagging off people without letting them know, then yes, it would only be a matter of time until those who you slagged off would find out about it. And they would be well within their rights to comment on what is being said about them. You cannot and should not, just put across your side of events and thing that the entire picture is complete. To put it hypothetically, would you go to a court of law and only allow one side to be told and then make a judgement without hearing what the other side has to say? No, you wouldn't - so why should that be any different in here, unless you don't want others to know the real truth.
Thirdly, in relation to redacting of comments. Not only do you start to redact your own original posts after someone has already responded to them, in order to make it look like no sense is being made. But after reviewing this redaction of other's comments is clear evidence of disruptive behaviour and goes against WP:TALK. What gives you the right to hide someone else's comments without their consent? From everything that is clearly visible and the way hat you speak to people, that you are guilty of your own accusations.
And finally, for the record, the comment CT Cooper posted above which reads "It has already [been] clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project", the person being refereed to in that statement is myself. As it is known by some editors on here, my mother passed away a few weeks ago, and on 2 July my uncle also passed away. I am going through enough pressure and stress at home dealing with that, and also the preparations for my volunteering at London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. By dragging up something that should have been dead and buried from the moment the AfD closed, has made me physically sick. I couldn't get a wink of sleep the minute this discussion was opened, when I finally managed to sleep, it was only for 4 hours. And then after that I ended up vomiting as a result of the stress that you are putting me through. Several uninvolved editors, and not just the ones listed above, have repeatedly told you to just let it go, drop the stick, walk away from it, get on with more constructive editing. You yourself have even demanded people should let things go. How can you expect people to let thing go, if you go on this crusade of dragging up shit (excuse the language) knowing full well what the consequences are, and how much distress you know it will bring to people. For someone to go about such nature is most likely doing it in a vindictive and malevolent manner. I still have my in-depth detailed response, which answers every single one of the sentences of your re-edited opening post above. And I say re-edited, because the edit history shows that you changed parts of your original report, which is becoming a bit of a normal pattern with you lately. Wesley☀Mouse 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
In light of the complexity of this matter, and the constant 'he said; she said' bickering. I hereby would like to submit the following diplomatic proposal in the hope that it may resolve this matter peacefully.
Proposal
  • All involved parties to refrain from making comments about users in regards to anything relating to the afd/merger issues, whether they by naming them directly or inadvertently naming in the context of 'a user' or 'the user'.
  • Any previous comments posted on other pages other than their own (such as WT:EURO, WT:ATA, WP:EAR, and WP:WQA) to be placed in a collapsible box with a brief explanation as to why that has been done - thus wiping the slate clean, so to speak. Individuals may also implement this onto their own user talk pages at their discretion.
  • Postponing any merger proposals for at least 4 months minimum - gives enough time for the dust to settle.
  • Any merger proposals connected with Ell & Nikki to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator.
  • If anyone is seen to be failing to comply to any of the above, then they are to be held responsible for their actions and may face possible sanctions, whether it be topic bans, interaction bans, or worse, as a consequence.
As the proposer of this idea, I will gladly support and abide to them. Do the other involved users (listed at the start) have any objections to this proposal? Wesley Mouse 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this proposal 100%. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said on my user talk page, I agree with this proposal. CT Cooper · talk 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Before I make an agreement I would like to ask if I can add some more towards the proposal? I believe it is important for all of us to have an input towards this matter so that we can all come to an agreement and understanding. Please note that if you have some doubts about any of them, could you please state your comments or questions below? I would be happy to clarify or change some of them around for you. Thanks Bleubeatle (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Additional proposals
  • If you are concerned about a user's recent actions or contributions(regarding any recent edits, questions, answers, or words written in other pages) then you have the right to notify the user on their own talk page regarding your concern. The user should be prepared to explain to you what intentions they have in mind. You must then provide feedback or suggestions to help this user understand why you are concerned about their actions. If for any reason you have decided to notify 'another' first, that 'other' user should make his/her own talk page open for the user(whom is of concern) to give an explanation about his/her recent actions. Feedback and suggestion can then be provided towards the user of concern in that page or his/her own page if possible.
  • If anyone has any questions regarding the diplomatic proposal then you can contact one of the users involved(listed at the start) by leaving your questions in their talk pages. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Not to sound to pedantic here, but those additional proposals are part and parcel of ground policies on Wikipedia anyway, and should be commonsensical to anyone who has been an autoconfirmed user for a reasonable length of time. Plus they are covered in point 4 of my proposal in a round-about way. Wesley Mouse 07:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I am with Wesley on this matter. Also it seems like a backway to continue the bickering so I still support Wesleys original proposal.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to sound gloomy but if we get too unrestricted with the proposal we can just as well not have one, because we all know that the bickering will continue. I will support Wesleys five guideline proposal and with no changes. I want this bickering to stop immediatly and atleast let it rest for the next four months.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have also made a suggestion on Bleubeatles talk page that if we all in a months time have followed the original proposals and we all have cooled down then perhaps we could make additions such as getting less restrictive on talk page interaction etc. I feel that Bleubeatles first additions to the proposal opens up for new drama to occur within days. One comment in the wrong tone on anyone of our talk pages right now I feel could make this dispute blow up again. Im just being realistic here.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with BabbaQ's point of view. The additional proposals does appear to leave a "back-door" open for sly bickering to occur, and that should never be allowed, as it would mean we'd be running the gauntlet and could inadvertently get blocked because it would allow Bleubeatle to be able to say whatever he likes, and we'd be forced into silence. Its an all or nothing scenario now. Wesley Mouse 08:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And not only that, Bleubeatle's additional suggestion, would make point 1 of my 5-point proposal null and void. The first point clearly states to refrain from naming users, while Bleubeatle wants to be able to continue discussing a matter which has already been proven to be a over-heated and hostile topic. Wesley Mouse 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say that my point is that it will help prevent further miscommunication if the user explains what they are up to. But it kind of does open some room for 'bickering' as you've stated above. Also you mentioned that they are "under Wikipedia's ground policies" therefore even if I withdraw the proposal they may still take effect right? If that is so then perhaps the first point of the additional proposal would not be needed after all. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Bleubeatle's additional proposals expand the scope beyond the AfD/merger issue which I don't think is necessary. Simply ending discussion on the merger and related discussion about the users involved, as Wesley proposes, should be sufficient. My only additional suggestion is that there be a sunset clause on the first bullet as well, possibly in four months to match the merger discussion, or if that is to likely to cause drama in four months perhaps extend it to a year, so we are all clear on how long this will apply for, in event it gets dug-up in the distant future. CT Cooper · talk 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, points 1 and 3 could technically go hand-in-hand in regards to a timeframe of validity. Wesley Mouse 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say that one year is much more realistic for a possible new discussion on merging the article. In four months time this discussion will probably still be as infected as it is at the present.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I initially said 4 months, as that would bring us to November, by which time people will be too busy stressing out over Christmas preparations to be bothered about stressing over this too. Wesley Mouse 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A year without discussing this matter further would benefit my sanity and most likely yours too.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
OK a year sounds reasonable I suppose. Another thing that has concerned me slightly in the "proposed addition" is the following line "If for any reason you have decided to notify 'another' first, that 'other' user should make his/her own talk page open for the user(whom is of concern) to give an explanation about his/her recent actions." - I never knew a user could close their talk page from others to edit? Isn't Wikipedia an open space for anyone to post on any talk page, unless they have an interaction ban imposed on them. Wesley Mouse 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think something was lost in translation there. I think it is very possible that English as for me isn't Bleubeatles first language.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, one year at a minimum for discussing that between the parties would be acceptable. And the best way to deal with the situation as that would give time for Ell & Nikki to perhaps do more music together too, making a merging discussion even more irrelevant in a year.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A year is a long time not to discuss merging, but will certainly allow a fresh start to made, so I would happily agree to that. If Bleubeatle wants an earlier expiry, then I would happy with anything from 6 months onwards. I don't really understand the "open talk page" proposal either, since users cannot unilaterally ban users from commenting on their talk pages, and my talk page most certainly is open. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm glad to hear that your talk page is open. I guess the first point of the additional proposal may not be needed after all. I just want to say that the purpose of the main point of the additional proposal is to clear up any miscommunications. And yes I agree, waiting for 1 year would be too long. In regards to what Wesley Mouse has said, most people would be too busy during Christmas and New Year. Perhaps a minimum of 5-6 months would be better? Also, I noticed that earlier in this section of the Wikiquette assistance page did you mentioned something about the dispute resolution? Would it be a good idea to have one before a proper merger proposal can happen? Bleubeatle (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

6 months sounds good to me. And nobody mentioned dispute resolution in this very thread. Disruption yes, but dispute no. Going down DR before a merger would basically be failing points 2 and 3 of the proposal. And why would we need to revisit the past 6 months from now by opening DR? The whole point of the proposal is to just drop everything, and start a clean slate. Wesley Mouse 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with six months. There are many forms of dispute resolution - with discussing an issue on the talk page and trying to reach a consensus being the first method of choice. I would suggest that after the six months have passed, we have a fresh discussion on an appropriate talk page and try to reach a consensus in either direction. If talk page discussion breaks down, then requesting mediation is generally the next step. According to Wesley's proposals we will already be having a supervising non-involved admin involved anyway. CT Cooper · talk 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, do we have an agreement? Once this is confirmed, the terms can be implemented. CT Cooper · talk 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I guess 6 months sounds fine. Oh and what about the second point that I made on the additional proposals? I might discount that as well but..if we do have any questions regarding the proposal we can just ask each other right? Bleubeatle (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The additional proposals haven't reached consensus and therefore aren't presently part of the agreement. However, if anyone is confused about the agreement after it has passed, then I won't have a problem with anyone asking for clarification. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what CT Cooper has said. The additions don't seem to have reached any consensus, and the context of them do seem to cover either core Wikipedia policies or the point that were made in the original 5-point proposal. In regards to asking for clarification at a later date, yes I can agree on that too. As I'm sure my brain will go into a complete state of mental breakdown once I've completed my Olympic Volunteering schedule in September (I'd wave to the cameras so you can see me, but you don't know what I look like, unless I walk around with banners showing your Wiki-names on them LOL). That being said, I'm assuming we're safe to implement this proposal then, and set an expiry date - which upon calculating from the calendar would be Monday 14 January 2013? Wesley Mouse 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a longterm WQA volunteer (over 1000 edits) who was asked to comment by Wesley Mouse. Historically I don't comment unless I have time to thoroughly review all contributions. While I've spent some time the past fews reviewing the interaction history here, I can't claim I've reviewed everything.

My overall impression is everyone has been acting in good faith and without any malicious intent; it's simply that disagreement leads to frustration which can lead to ill considered words. No individual editor is jumping out as significantly more at fault than anyone else.

This alert is actually fairly extraordinary because it is very rare that editors who have gotten to the point where they get to WQA show the maturity and grace to work through to a mutually agreeable solution as well as I'm observing here; that's a compliment to all the involved parties. In general I'm wary that elaborate interaction proposals are hard to maintain in practice; however, since you're all agreeable to the concept I encourage you to proceed as you are.

My two pieces of advice are:

  1. If you're willing to meet the other editor halfway -- you're probably going to fail miserably! You'll end up getting into a scuffle about where "halfway" actually is. Try to be willing to meet the other editor at least 3/4 of the way. When another party posts something particularly wrong or unfair, take an extra moment or two before replying. (Sometimes my extra moments are measured in days). The more calm and neutral the tone of your replies the more effective they are in the long run.
  2. Take into consideration that any agreement you make among yourselves cannot be considered binding upon the rest of Wikipedia. So if after you come to final consensus a new editor comes along in next month and Afds Ell & Nikki you have to ready to participate in a positive manner without getting on each other's nerves again. Nobody Ent 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly thank you Gerard for taking time to look into this. I appreciate how extremely busy your schedule is at this present time. Also thank you for the complements too, that indeed caught me by surprise and brought a smile of pride to my face learning that I had done something right and diplomatic. Sure has inspired me in the right direction here, and giving that want to do more similar acts of diplomatic help in the future on Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Assistance concerning user America69 undoing edits I made and threatening banning me

So I apologize in advance if I have not entered all of the above information correctly. I have not attempted a dispute resolution before. Concerning user America69 I have been unable to contact this person as they are "Semi-Retired" and I don't see how to type on his page to notify them. My issue is concerning the Florida Gubernational Election 2014 page. I originally edited it to add myself as an independent to the page. America69 removed my edit and the current comment he posted as his reason is "(→‎Potential: this is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote) (undo)"

Yes I do realize I added an Independent category to this page and added myself to it. I believe the entry was very neutral. I did not hype myself in this edit nor did I add any links to the page. Independent voters do exist as do independents running. I have produced over 6 hours of Youtube videos discussing candidacy issues for Florida Governor. Based on the Wiki guidelines if I can not add myself as an independent and people that know me can not add me as an independent then how can anyone ever be added as an independent/democrat/republican? By definition anyone adding anyone else to the page 'knows them.' So at what point then is an Independent candidate considered to be a valid candidate? Do they have to spend $10,000 on tv ads? $100,000? $1 million dollars? I personally feel it is a sad day when democracy in America is determined by whom can buy elections which is what this seems to be coming down to especially with America69 comment in his edits and his threats to have my account squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnblumberg (talk • contribs)

Note that this isn't dispute resolution, this is board is for discussing issues related to civility and not content issues. Note also that the edit summary "This is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote" [31] was not actually directed at you. Further, click here to be lead to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but note that they require that significant discussion on the relevant article page should already have taken place. They also require that interested parties agree to the dispute resolution; it isn't mandatory. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
And note also that it appears that you have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia works, and what its purpose is. It is not a venue for self-promotion, no matter how worthy the cause. I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and then ask yourself whether you might do better to direct your energies elsewhere. Without published secondary reliable sources to verify the fact, and to verify that it is in any way of note, the fact that you are running as a candidate in an election is of no direct consequence to this encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive120&oldid=503238793"