Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Migdiachinea (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 13 October 2011 (Anonymous (Street Meat)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 Wikipedia: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 discussions

    Ip:14.96.177.3

    Impolite behaviour. The history page lists out the summaries of the IP. Secret of success Talk to me 12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcobadotti (talk · contribs)

    Resolved
     – user blocked Gerardw (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs to be educated on what vandalism is not, and that not all those who disagree with him are "Turkish troll(s)" with "third world monuments" or some such. This has been going on since September, with regards to Nicosia and related articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm... seems he quit with another great rant. See how long that lasts, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthprovails and others on Talk:British National Party

    I feel there is quite a lot of discontent on Talk:British National Party regarding several of the users. While I realise that an article about such a contentious subject will always generate disputes, the number of them seems to have grown recently. Unfortunately there are several users who believe that there is an anti-BNP agenda on Wikipedia and so have taken to being a bit too belligerent on the talk page. The prime user seems to be User:Truthprovails, whose talk page comments are becoming increasingly accusing toward other editors. It seems that the vast majority of his comments now seem to be accusing other editors of having a left-wing agenda and saying that other, well-intentioned editors have no credibility. He has even removed an other editor's comments. Unfortunately, I feel that this editor believes that everyone is out to get him and his party and doesn't fully understand why certain views (such as the Party's ideologies) are placed on the article when reliable sources support such evidence, even though the concept of reliable sources has been explained again and again on the article. To a lesser extent, User:Saxonshield may also need a bit of guidance. While he hasn't had quite the presence that Truthprovails has had, he also believes that there are left-wing editors who have infiltrated the article. There has been only the most minor communication between the two editors (as seen here, where Truthprovails further assumes bad faith of other editors, and here where Saxonshield advises Truthprovails to only "speak his mind" on their respective pages), but I feel that both may need some sort of guidance as to correct Wiki etiquette. I have not taken the time to read all of the comments by all of the editors on the talk page, as there is a vast number of them, but there may also be other editors (not just pro-BNP editors, either) who are not acting wholly positively. All of these problems could soon descend into and edit war, as already there have been numerous reverts of edits on the main page. Thanks. – Richard BB 17:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't think there are users biased against the BNP please explain why Holocaust Denial was added to the ideology box for over 6 months (check history). It has since been removed, but there was no apology or anything. The page is a warzone because there are users with political views opposed to the BNP, so they use the page to discredit the BNP by posting policies/ideologies which in fact have never existed. Saxonshield (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I do not believe this page is the place to debate this issue, but it's probably because Nick Griffin has previously been an advocate of Holocaust denial, and the BNP have this as part of their history. – Richard BB 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been brought to my attention that User:Multiculturalist may also have a few issues -- while this particular editor is someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum. – Richard BB 12:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of soapboxing and boarderline PA's floting about. But I think the cae against User:Multiculturalist is a bit understated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also draw your attention to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Multiculturalist, I am accused og being a sockpuppet of User:Multiculturalist.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This situation has suddenly become very convoluted. Apologies if there is any confusion in this, or if people have been dragged into it inadvertently (I, myself, have). – Richard BB 15:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an ANI about the general attutude at BNP may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone else wants to start an AN/I post, I was going to leave it for a while. One user has already been banned and there is now a case open at WP:NPOVN. If the situation hasn't abated after further intervention from people at WP:NPOVN, I'll make an AN/I post. – Richard BB 08:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Phoenix_and_Winslow

    User:Phoenix_and_Winslow has previously been warned against making personal attacks, [1], but during an ongoing editing dispute at ugg boots the editor has been attacking User:WLRoss. Two posts in particular are a concern: [2] and [3]. The repeated raising of the "win" over the other editor at an unrelated article is frustrating, However, as I'm part of the editing dispute I don't feel that I can be a neutral commentator on this, so I figured it would be best brought here for people uninvolved to work out if this needs to be tackled and, if so, how. Hopefully it can be handled before it progresses. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be better if Phoenix and Winslow struck out the comments about other editors and strictly focused on content.Gerardw (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked Phoenix and Winslow several times to stop the attacks and concentrate on the article content without success. These personal attacks are just a continuation of Phoenix and Winslow's normal editing style. The main problem with his attacks is that he repeats claims that were discredited on previous notice boards and implies other editors are similarly discredited if they agree with my edits. I feel he is in need of mentoring to improve his behaviour. See here for examples of his previous behaviour. Wayne (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ' are just a continuation of Phoenix and Winslow's normal editing style is itself uncivil. "Comment on content, not contributors."Gerardw (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing the history of Phoenix, Mongo and Wayne at Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations should inform anyone attempting to decide whether Phoenix has crossed the line here. Administrators were forced to stub the entire article. Mongo mentioned previous, similar behavior by Wayne on 9/11 articles: he adopts the minority view (as described in WP:FRINGE) and begins pushing to treat it as the majority view. Along the way, Wayne hasn't been very careful about sticking to the truth. Are these personal attacks, or well-founded criticisms? I agree that Phoenix could be more polite in stating his case against Wayne, but I think he has a valid case against Wayne. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    People gloating about "winning" previous disputes are "well founded criticisms"? Every edit should be taken on its own merits and previous decisions/judgements should not be mobalised by editors seeking to belittle/mock/discredit their peers. If someone violates guildelines such as WP:FRINGE, by all means, civilly point this out. What is unhelpful here are the personal attacks and dragging of previous, now irrelevant, disputes into an arena where WP:FRINGE or other guidelines are not in question. For the sake of full disclosure I will point out that both myself and the anon contributor above are also part of this dispute. Mandurahmike (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Mandujrahmike. "Valid case against Wayne" has no meaning in the context of an article talk page. If an editor's behavior is chronically disruptive, there are appropriate forums for to discuss the behavior -- it has no bearing on the whether "ugg" refers to a type of footwear or the specific brand. Gerardw (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite multiple requests to present evidence to support the claims (made above by 63.171.91.193) at the WP:RFC/U that Phoenix and Winslow took out against me, the only evidence ever presented was this single diff and his claims on that board were rejected. Saying the claims are "well-founded criticisms" is itself a personal attack as the anons so called "valid case" was rejected at the RFC/U which the anon is aware of. That Mandurahmike and uninvolved Gerardw has assumed my editing behaviour has not been tested highlights the problem of editors accepting previously discredited claims as truth when repeated. It is rhetoric. Phoenix and Winslow keeps repeating and claiming he proved the claim to discredit editors supporting me. Such claims have no place in an article where Fringe is not an issue. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Roux and Moxy

    A discussion about a change to a template has escalated into a flamewar, between two participants who have a history with one another. PKT(alk) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Anononymous (Street Meat)

    Hi all -- please check out the dicussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. If there's something I've done wrong, I apologize and will recuse myself. But I feel that I've been treated unfairly and that people have ganged up on me -- thank you and warm regards -- Mig (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=455407881"