Misplaced Pages

:Wikiquette assistance - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 12:52, 18 January 2009 (archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:52, 18 January 2009 by NE Ent (talk | contribs) (archive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to wikiquette assistance
    Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.
    • Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
    • No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.
    		 Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active alerts

    user:Icsunonove

    user:Icsunonove got very excited and insulting yesterday and was thus reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 no action was taken and the hope was he would calm down... he just came back and has upped the insulting by ton:

    and he keeps raging and raging... --noclador (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    --noclador (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • With people such as yourself Noclador, it is difficult not to be angry and upset. How you provoke people and accuse them of being fascists trying to make a new Rome, how you revert edits blindly labeling them as vandalism. You'd drive about anyone to rage. I've had enough of Misplaced Pages for quite some time. You go and deal with your issues. Icsunonove (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    This alert can be closed, due to the user's stated intention to take a wiki-break (or to leave altogether). I would suggest in the future that you assume good faith about a fellow editor's intentions, Noclador, as it seems Icsunonove was editing in good faith. There are better ways to deal with someone making edits against consensus and convention than accusing them of having a bias, and such accusations, even if you feel they are justified, do nothing to diffuse the situation or make other users more willing to work with you toward consensus. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Theseeker4 - I assumed good faith about Icsunonove - if you would have had a look at the discussion attempts at Steinerner Steg you would see, that not only did I provide sources as he demanded I also tried to discuss with him at a point when he was already on a tear Talk:Steinerner Steg. The problem with Icsunonove is that he simply refused to discuss - in fact he is in every sense a disruptive editor. If you talk with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise you would learn, that Icsunonove has a long history of being disruptive and claims that he is taking a wiki-break... fresh insults AFTER you closed this tread. --noclador (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    I don't want you to misunderstand me, I am not saying his conduct is flawless by any means. However, looking at the actual sequence of events that led up to this, it seems he had some provocation. I am not trying to turn this on you and say it is your fault, but you should not declare someone's edits as vandalism when they are in fact a content dispute, even if they are editing after you contest the edit on the talk page. I reviewed Talk:Steinerner Steg and see Iscunonove trying to engage in collaboration in a very civil manner. Now you claim a certain IP is this user, but without a check user we cannot say that for certain or treat them as identical, unless you have a diff where one or the other says that is the case. Based on the diffs above it seems Iscunonove was trying to collaborate and work in good faith, but statements such as these upset him. He was trying to work on the article and was actively participating in the discussion on the talk page, and did not become uncivil until the diffs above. It seems his behavior was not entirely unprovoked, and if some users had handled it differently, it would not have come to name calling, demanding bans and resignations from Misplaced Pages. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Forgot this provocative diff . Theseeker4 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    And so much for permanent sabbatical --noclador (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    I don't even know where to reply, with the multiple posts and adding new sections. What I'm seeing is: Noclodar edit warring and going WP:3rr, forum shopping (here, AN/I, User talk:EdJohnston), and a lack of following procedures (e.g. a dubious sockpuppet claim on AN/I instead of WP:SSP. There's a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages (e.g. The book is wrong ) when the standard is whether it's verifiable. Gerardw (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Montanabw

    Resolved – No incivility here Gerardw (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Montana is generally a productive and active contributor to articles related to horses. However, I believe she sometimes loses patience with arguments she disagrees with too quickly and expresses herself in a way that strongly implies ownership issues. We've had run-ins in the past, but after a drawn-out attempt at dispute resolution and mutual apologies we have been trying to cooperate on improving horses in warfare. A few days ago, however, Montana made this post at talk:horses in warfare, which I felt was very disparaging.

    Peter 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    So, because of your common past history (which you failed to properly participate in and instead decided to maintain an offensive position, as I saw on the attempted resolution page), Montanabw has recommended that rather than make significant changes, that proposed major changes be brought to the article "sandbox" so that consensus can be reached before implementing them is a bad thing or in any way WP:OWN or against WP:CIVIL?? Peter, you seriously need to review how you interact with other editors, learn to "let bygones be bygones", and become part of the community. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Peter, I'm not seeing what's so disparaging about that statement. She complimented you on suggestions and additions you've made in the past, but then asks that you actually help with editing instead of just complaining about things and waiting for other people to fix them. It is quite reasonable to ask for additions to the article to be brought to the talk page first, especially on an article this large, this potentially controversial, that has been worked on by so many people over so long. Montana's not "owning" this article or any other article, and most of the editors she works with seem to have absolutely no problem in collaborating with her. Check out the recent conversations she's had with users at Banker horse, Sorraia, Paso Fino and her talk page. No problems there, eh? Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    The bit about sandboxing and adding material instead of discussing has been said quite a few times already, and it wasn't what bothered me. It was the quips about "no whining from the sidelines" and "don't waste our time arguing". I don't see the relevance of that type of comments, nor the highly aggressive edit summary "Lead, follow or get out of the way."
    Montana's post came after I pointed out a few things under a heading specifically asking for pre-FA improvement. Most of those issues were about stuff that had been removed without good reason or undue coverage of other things and none of it contained personal comments. Trying to start a discussion by bringing the issue up on the talkpage is the most natural way to deal with issues for me and in my experience the way all experience Wikipedians do it. When someone calls that "whining", I can't help finding it more than a bit rude. I hope you can relate to that.
    Peter 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Did you post a request for clarification on her talk page to determine whether you were even the target of that comment? Did she have an opportunity to apologize if you were? I cannot see any hard evidence that she was discussing you in particular, but if she was, wouldn't the best first step be to ask her, in a civil manner, to clarify what she meant to see if she really meant offence? I don't see any reason for this to be here at this point, as I can't see any direct interaction with the user in question to show one-on-one resolution was attempted. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    I read that post by Montanabw as more of a pep-talk to everyone. She continues to ask for input and encourages changes for the better. I am sorry that Peter takes her comments so personally. - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, I really think Peter was taking the comments personally when they weren't meant as such, which is why I suggested he attempt to directly discuss his concerns with Montanabw. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    I have attempted to follow WP:AGF, but at this point, I am tired of beating my head against the wall. I am more than willing to answer questions from anyone here who wants to know my position on a given matter, but this is the second or third time Peter has gone after me personally in recent months, including a talk page "mediation" that went nowhere. See here and here. I think it is counterproductive, if not utterly fruitless, for me to bother answering any of Peter's comments directly because I am now of the personal belief that at all he wants to do is bully me and argue for the sake of arguing. I believe the guideline at this point for me is WP:DFTT. I will still negotiate in good faith on article content editing issues and answer legitimate requests from any OTHER user or admin about my actions. I have worked with multiple editors on Horses in Warfare for over two years and the collaboration has been extensive. Montanabw 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Montanabw has been of great help to me, a newcomer, who can't even add stuff properly or with agility yet. I think maybe if you speak of the specific issues or stuff you want changed or added to the article this will help. Articles are hard as research will show sources will conflict. Don't let us loose or abuse this valuable and patient user. Arsdelicata (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    My first reaction is Why are we wasting time on this? The comment is not uncivil in *any* sense, and is not directed at any individual. It's difficult to see what anyone would take offense (out of context of 2 years of discussion perhaps). I suggest that Peter rereads the post in the context of a newcomer, and either resubmits a complaint with diffs pointing out the exact nature of his complaint, or he realizes that there is no evidence of uncivility and withdraws this report. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    I just not seeing incivility by Montanabw here. And to take two phrases (sideline, whining) out of context of a whole, positive upbeat message to me is more uncivil than comment in the first place. Gerardw (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    This isn't the first time Montana has made a "that's enough of that racket"-posts before, and I felt this one was a repetition of that. My major annoyance, though, is that Montana makes this speech despite having had plenty of opinionated arguments about the latest additions without producing any source-related information on it.

    I was thinking about posting this at Montana's talkpage, but last time I did so, I felt like she didn't understand a word I said. Considering we've had some diffuclties in the past, and that we have had personal exchanges, I thought it was better to bring up the issue here. I did not understand any of the instructions here as meaning I had to bring it up on her talkpage first.

    Peter 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Peter, as you are the one who has run horribly contrary to WP:AGF, I would assume that you have used up your share of good faith from Montana, and would recommend staying off her talkpage for awhile. I was involved in the ANI, I monitored the attempted mediation, and just as everyone else who did so, was exasperated by your actions. Honestly, if it had not been an attempt at mediation, you certainly would have been brought up here at WQA if not even ANI for your aggression, and one-sided POV. My suggestion: you need to be mentored on how to work cooperatively on this project. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    He didn't take your advice. see User talk:Montanabw. Peter, this needs to stop. - Epousesquecido (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    No, but he did take TheSeeker4's advice , so it seems inappropriate to chastise him for following advice given here. This is neutrally worded, so let's give Peter the benefit of doubt here. Gerardw (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    The problem with that is that he took my advice AFTER Montana already weighed in here, so no matter how much you try to assume good faith, in light of all his other contacts with Montana it seems he is simply trying to be confrontational and not really diffuse the situation.Theseeker4 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Reading the mediation and seeing what happened there, and seeing Peter's actions in confronting Montana on her talk page after not only being told here that he has used up any good faith that he was due but also seeing Montana reply at this alert leads me to believe this is going to proceed nowhere as Peter is completely unwilling to listen to reason or to compromise on anything. I think this should be closed, and believe if Peter continues with his harassment that Montana will have no choice but to take it to the next step in dispute resoultion. She has been more than patient. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:King of the North East

    Background: Both this user and I have, in the past, had a "horrible" argument over the article Bicycle Kick. This argument turned out to involve almost as much as 5 Wikipedists, but he was not originally part of the party in dispute. As a matter of fact, the situation was more like: 4 Wikipedists vs. Me. At the end, "King of the North East" and another user took my points to a series of different places, including the football project page and even notified this "Wikiquette Alert" page due to some of my rude comments. The result of this conflict ended up in me getting a warning for my behavior, and in me keeping the edits I wanted (for the most part) in the Bicycle Kick article.

    Currently: It has been almost half a year since that argument took place, and now I have decided to once again try to improve the bicycle kick article and provide more links and sources. However, now that I have started doing this, User:King of the North East has yet again re-appeared from the grave like an ugly nightmare. Yet, instead of searching for "peace" (since he was the person that accused me at "Wikiquette Alert"), he has sent me an aggressive message that, more than likely, expects for me to send an equally aggressive reply.

    Well, I've already been warned before, and I do not want to be banned from Misplaced Pages. I would like it for the concerned editors here to please warn User:King of the North East, because he apparently thinks that he can get away with insulting me because I cannot do the same to him.

    Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MarshalN20#Gibberish

    • "I see you are still wrecking the Bicycle Kick article with uninteligable gibberish"--King of the North East. 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    As you see here, he is saying: 1. I am wrecking the article = Insulting. 2. I write gibberish = Insulting my language skills.

    • "Not only does it display awful misuse of the English language"--King of the North East. 00:01, 17 January 2009

    As you see here, he is once again making fun of my language skills, which is an insult to my person.

    • "Also please try to avoid contaminating articles with your own personal point of view" (UTC) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    As you see here, he states that I am "contaminating articles" and accuses me of POV.


    Please dear members of the Wikiquette alert team, or random Wikipedists that want to act as judges: Be fair. I have not done anything wrong, and there is no reason for this user to keep attacking me. We, supposedly, had already been told by other users to stop arguing. Yet, as you can see here, it is him who is starting the problem (not me, I haven't done anything wrong). He should receive, for the least, a warning. I do not want an argument with this person, because I already have enough arguments going on in my life. Once again, please be fair of judgement. There is no way I can assume "Good Faith" of a user that uses comments like the ones I have just shown.-- (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Let's not try using false logic here in order to make a WP:POINT. The sentence that was quoted on your talkpage was, indeed, horrible English - it was a run-on sentence, and had very poor overall structure. He called your edit gibberish - he did NOT directly say "you completely suck at the use of the English language". A quick read of WP:NPA would have shown the difference. There is also an edit in which you used weasel words/non-NPOV which I believe is also quoted on your talkpage. "Do not contaminate articles" is a comment on edits, not on you, the editor (other than accusing you of non-NPOV, which is NOT uncivil if it's true). Neither are attacks, unless you read them as one. When your edits are questioned, that is when a good editor has time to reflect on the edits and see what they could have done differently. Perhaps "contaminate" was a little harsh, but not inherently uncivil. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    MarshalN20 please post notice on King of NE's talk page per Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts. Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    I agree with BW's assertion that the comments made on your talk page were accurate, and not personal attacks. I am sorry if you are offended by them, but you have to admit the sentence you added was in need of major revision. Do not forget one of the most important parts of civility and that is to assume good faith Theseeker4 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    user:Icsunonove II

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere – Needs to be refiled @ WP:ANI

    User was reported here (see above) and on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 for about 50 cases of incivility. Case was declared resolved by user:Theseeker4 with the following rationale: "User has stated intention to leave Misplaced Pages for some amount of time, possibly permanently, so no further action is necessary.". 28 hours later:

    and he is currently going on and going on and going on and going on and... as I already said yesterday: Case is unresolved! --noclador (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    also: Icsunonove problems with civility have a long history:
    --noclador (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    As this was "resolved" yet, unresolved at WP:ANI, please re-file it there. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    ROFLOL. I made the statement about Germanization and Hitler, to contradict his making statements that others were doing Italianization and are like Mussolini. He said it in the top of his post! You can go to the link he made and see what I said and in what context. LOL Incredible, just incredible. He is the one that is obviously going on and on and on trying to dig up "evidence", and apparently wikistalking me at the same time. Noclador, do you REALLY have NOTHING better to do? The case would probably be resolved if Noclador was banned for a good month for what he did on the editing of the page in the first place, for making claims of "italianization" "fascism" and "mussolini". On top of clearly using these admin warning systems for his own agenda and wasting people's time. As I stated on that other page, it would be nice to see some Admins look at what HE is doing, investigate it, and come down on him. Instead of these cases where someone makes this uber-witch hunt. Icsunonove (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    user:Icsunonove III

    So, this new policy: let me understand: you can call other editors: "pigs, crazy, nuts, genetically linked to Hitler, BIZARRE!, ridiculous, hypersensitive and indeed insecure, aggressive, discusting, extremely insecure, childish,..." and tell them things like: "You have no idea, Is it so boring in Merano, Swedish being arrogant, do you have a learning disability?, two people who sound and act like teenagers, You have issues dude, Grow the heck up, Are you smoking, something?, evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page,..." and about 50 insults more and will get away with it, if you say you will leave wikipedia and if you come back and continue to insult, that is ok, because hey insulting editors is not an Wikiquette alert??? thus one can go on indefinitely insulting other editors??? examples after I filed the second report (or in other words the last 20 minutes)

    and in between he went again on

    Name calling: "I'm in the mud with the pigs again, look at what Noclador does." User talk:Supparluca# Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol or Difference between revisions Don't know where you come from, but in my social environment such a behaviour is difficult to tolerate. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    God, I'd love to know what your social environment is, with the accusations you made and the edit war you instigated. Icsunonove (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    user:Icsunonove IV

    as usual: Icsunonove attacking User:HalfShadow, --noclador (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    user:Noclador 1 thru 1,000,000

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere – We don't take kindly to retaliatory filings 'round here, especially ones unrelated to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

    for abuse of the alerts... =) Icsunonove (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance Add topic