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 WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Hello, I've been having difficulty with a user Jayjg and am seeking advice on how to resolve this. We have had several arguments regarding wiki policy as applied to a page. We've both made same ad hom. accusations. I had labeled him with wp:tagteam, wp:owner, wp:hound and of acting in bad faith. I also brought up some previous e-mails and disputes where he's been punished for demonstrating this behavior. He's accused me of breaking just about every wiki rule I think there is, many of which I feel apply to his behavior.

Though many of the accusations and blame go both ways I feel his is wrong on topics such as wp:synth and he feels I'm wrong. He followed me to wp:nor talk when I was looking for a 3rd party opinion on our dispute and started . I added a relevant comment on an unrelated page he maintains, in which he responded with a personal attack and later a border line threat "Unlike what I have done, you are now actually WP:HOUNDing me, and that better be the last time you do it."

I was particularly concerned about two things:

1. When ever I ask for other peoples opinions after he comments (he comments on all my threads), he interrupts claiming consensus already took place (when it couldn't have as the post was very new and there were people on both sides) or that his opinion matters more because he's a "more experienced editor". I've seen him do this to other people as well and I feel it makes for a hostile environment.

2. He followed me to someones personal page when I asked why they believed "aggregation was synthesis" (they had only posted "It is SYTNH.") he interrupted our conversation and accusing me of "hectoring" people which I feel crossed the line. The personal who owns the page can be free to end the conversation.

I'd like to get to the point where:

• 1. I won't be harassed when having a personal conversation on someones else page.

• 2. I would like to promote an environment where everyone has a chance to express their opinion ( meaning perhaps a week, not hours or a day) without the conversation being declared "over", wp:IDHT or done with prematurely when there is clearly not a consensus.

• 3. We can have a discussion without it turning into a wiki lawyer debate, and when wiki lawyering is necessary, we can seek unbiased outside council when we disagree.

I'm seeking dispute resolution because I don't feel we can get through this without a 3rd party. If you can let me know how we can work through it would be helpful.

Thanks, Gsonnenf (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Djathinkimacowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fedora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a content dispute over inclusion of notable wearers of Fedoras to the article Fedora. The conflict was reported at WP:DRN before I became involved. It appeared that some editors had wanted a list of notable wearers and some (including Djathinkimacowboy) were opposed to such a list (rightfully, per WP:TRIVIA and were happy with listing certain notable wearers in the Prose. Almost immediately from my involvement, I believe I was given an uncivil tone from Djathinkimacowboy and was treated to a lack of assumption of good faith. Honestly, I feel bullied and that one editor is trying to sully my good name.

Below I've included the relevant posts that I've been upset by, as well (in the interest of full disclosure) included my edits where I may have gotten frustrated and crossed the line. I've included timestamps to demonstrate the escalation of the issue, all posts are from Talk:Fedora unless designated (DRN).

• Djathinkimacowboy's posts that I have taken offense with: 10:02 10:3810:41 11:00 (DRN) 11:53 11:57 12:0112:07 (DRN) 12:11 13:33 13:37 13:39 13:40 13:51

• My potentially uncivil posts: 10:24 (DRN)10:44 11:5912:2412:24

Honestly, all I'm looking for is outside advice. I am quite frustrated by the editor's actions and wish to avail myself of any way the community has in dealing with this kind of behavior, because I feel most editors wouldn't continue to weather this kind of abuse and stay constructive. Achowat (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Rather than trying to extract a pound of flesh for civility issues, how about letting the issue die a natural death. It's obvious Djathinkimacoyboy (hereafter referred to as Djathink) was trying to change the viewpoint (and getting no support for it) and that many editors around the situation are fed up with it currently. If it's a systemic problem with Djathink, there needs to be more demonstrations of imtemporate behavior as the WP community really doesn't like to take action on civility issues. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through the Editor's talk page history shows an escalating problem. The user has only been active since November, has had 3 WP:ANI requests against him (all for personal attacks and harassment) and has been blocked for incivility. Honest question, not intended to be socratic, at what level of action does the community identify a growing and likely unstoppable problem? Achowat (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this current RfArb case to get an idea of how much the Community will put up with incivil behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit it seems, and that's a shame for a community-based project. I am worried that I may have gotten frustrated and overly-ambitious in my dealings with Cowboy's posts. Would you (or any disinterest party) be willing to look at the relevant posts and let me know whether my actions (specifically taking the discussion here) is in keeping with the Community's expectations? I understand that I was frustrated and may have had too short a trigger finger and I would very much like to know how the community would like editors to deal with situations of this nature. More pertinently, did I do the right thing or was their a better way I could have handled this dispute? Achowat (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment: I admit I have been harsh with Achowat. Much of the language is personal and I regret it. I am sorry it happened. However, here, for example the citation of what amounted to scurrilous ANI against me, is the type of reaction from Achowat that angers me. Achowat also crosses the line a bit too often in other ways. If I may respond in kind, I often feel Achowat is on the verge of hounding me when he refuses to be attentive to issues, and repeatedly asks for the same information. Still, I have no doubt he has his heart in the right place. I want to extend an olive branch and put this behind us, as I often try to do... or is no one interested in that?--Djathinkimacowboy 16:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology (here, on my user talk, and on the relevant talk page) was well accepted. Consider the hatchet buried and this 'case' (if that's even the right term) to be resolved. Achowat (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure this is the correct place, but I believe I am being WP:HOUND by another user. I won't put too many details now, in case this is the wrong place. But this user is scouring through my history and deleting everything he feels is not notable. I will admit, during my younger Wikipedia days, that I added pictures that I did not take. But some I've added, I thought had good fair use with them. Also, there are multiple pages that I created that he wants deleted. I just feel suffocated and the whole experience is pushing me away from contributing to Wikipedia again. So is this the place to receive help? PGPirate 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good place to start. We can refer you somewhere else if it's appropriate to do so. Nobody Ent 15:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm scared to put anything on my talk page, cause he will see it posted there. I'm actually under a time-restraint because he is trying to delete many of my pages. PGPirate 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to replace "user name" with the real one of the user in question in the template on the top. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to explain yourself now? I noticed you've been taking articles to AfD on a mass scale, at least one of which was speedily kept with the explanation "Bad-faith mass nomination". Want to tell us what's going on here?

With regards to the user you believe is wikihounding you: I've done similar things myself, when I've come across an editor who's latest contributions seem problematic, then I've also checked their history for any past mis-doings. This is completely justified, as long as they're not acting like a dick about it.

With regards to any image problems, it would show good faith of you to help out with sorting through your earlier uploads and pointing out which ones you didn't actually hold the copyright to (as you said, "I will admit, during my younger Wikipedia days, that I added pictures that I did not take." -- even if it was done a while ago it's still a copyright violation today).

Three of your pages are currently in AfD, am I right? If you believe the user may take any other of your pages to AfD very soon, it might help to just ask him to slow down a bit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm scared to put anything on my talk page, cause he will see it posted there." - One of the steps listed at the top of this page when requesting assistance is to notify the other involved user(s). He should see that it has been posted, and should be given the opportunity to provide his side. I don't see a problem with their actions up to this point. A few good faith AfDs started. A few good faith copyright tags added. I'll notify them now. --Onorem♠Dil 08:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PGPirate hasn't started a proper case yet, you should've given him the chance to decide whether he really wants to make an issue out of this here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose that's true. My apologies to PGPirate for calling him out on not notifying GrapedApe. I'd somehow convinced myself last night that he was specific with the complaint...probably because it was immediately obvious after a glance at his talk page. You are correct though. --Onorem♠Dil 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not hounding PGPirate. I primarily edit university articles and PGPirate has uploaded a number of copyvios relating to East Carolina University. PGPirate has also created ECU-related articles worthy of AFD. For the record, this is a very bold move for a user who was blocked for mass-AFD'ing 85 college fight songs because he was upset about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail to Thy Name So Fair Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E.C. Victory. All of my AFDs are legit. All of my image copyvios/deletion tags have been upheld save 1.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal: PGPirate tells us right now, which of his images were "pictures that I did not take." I have a list at User:GrapedApe/PGPirate. And, if the answers are honest, I will agree to give him a 1 month advance notice before I AFD any other ECU articles to give him time to establish notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• GrapedApe is acting in good faith. While one deletion discussion may have resulted in a speedy keep, several more are on their way to deletion. I beleive that it is PGPirate who should slow down here and review notability and referencing guidelines before adding more content.--RadioFan (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:R-41 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:R-41|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Trust Is All You Need has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL by being rude and condescending on my talk page. I told him repeatedly to cease this behaviour, but he keeps doing it. I addressed an issue of WP:COMMON NAME to which he responded to me "who cares?" and then said "yes i'm being rude so sorry" - but then he kept on being rude saying "why do I even bother??? I know you won't listen"; he then criticized me about a mistake I made earlier that had nothing to do with the content about what I was discussing by suggesting that I am prone to error and directly and aggressively suggesting that I am ignorant about Iraq, saying "Do you actually know anything about Iraq??? First you try to label it a client state of the USSR, and now this?? Come on!"; then an aggressive emotional rhetorical response saying "Are you kidding me???" and then lastly saying "Either give me facts, or give up." - suggesting that I owe him out of subservience to give him facts so that he can decide what is fact or not - that is not how Wikipedia works, no user owes another user something - they provide facts to the Wikipedia community. All of these incivil quotes by this user are available to be seen on my talk page here: [1].--R-41 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming be of being uncivil? Thats ludicrous, if someone is uncivil here, its you! And really, thats the way I talk and write to others everyday. If you are not able to have a proper discussion with me, and prove you're assertion with sources, why do you even bother to start discussions with me? I've tried to help, I've even proven to you that you're assertions are wrong. But you seem to be pushing on and on you're view, without any sources... If I'm being rude, sorry, that was not my goal with this message (but I understand if it could be misinterpreted). I'm having problems discussing the issues with R-41 with regards to the History of Iraq (1968–2003) article. If someone wants to join the discussion, please do. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided sources to you now, plus Wikipedia policy states that a user is not to respond to a complaint about behaviour by bringing up another person's behaviour - the issue is about the behaviour of the user in issue of the complaint. If you wish to file your own complaint about me, you can.--R-41 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"plus Wikipedia policy states that a user is not to respond to a complaint about behaviour by bringing up another person's behaviour" -- where did you read that? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy states that users are to focus on their behaviour as addressed in a complaint raised about them, and not distract the issue of their behaviour by bringing up that of others in a discussion focused on their own behaviour - there is a way for TIAYN to address his allegations against me, and that is to open a section such as this one for me. The topic of this section is TIAYN'S behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mistaken. Your behavior can become part of the discussion just as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, you can examine my behaviour. Now what about TIAYN's behaviour that I have addressed here.--R-41 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chuck Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor comes to asks that a statement assumably from one of Norris's biographies (we don't really know, because the section is not sourced) be clarified. While he gives speculative and questionable reasons, the initial request, that the statement be properly attributed, was reasonable. Niteshift36 only points out where the new editor is wrong (in areas that the editor, nor any other editor but Niteshift36 can be expected to know because we didn't write the section) without helping.

Though silly, the new editor pointed out that the sources's first edition publication was in 1987, rather than the 1988 date given in the article. Niteshift36 initially partially agreed (claiming that 1988 was "splitting the difference" between the hardcover and softcover publication dates, like that's any good reason), but then started to insist that the first edition was published in 1988 because his copy was from 1988. I found three sources giving a 1987 first edition publication date, Amazon, Goodreads, and a newspaper. Niteshift36 is quite antagonistic to the idea that he might have a reprint.

I confirmed that the article section in question does not have a citation (and have since tagged it with a CN tag), and that some of the book citations lacked page numbers. I explained that to properly source the article, the paragraph needs to be sourced, and the book citations need page numbers for what they're citing.

Niteshift36 called my request for citations "dickish." It may just be my experience with every other article and editor on the site, but usually, when an editor is asked to provide a proper citation for a section they failed to cite and they proudly boast of having the book to do so, they go on and do it. It's curious that Niteshift36 is outright combative to changing the article, such that he fails to see the plain absense of a citation in the section in question.

In short, Niteshift36 enjoyed biting a newcomer so much that he couldn't see past the blood to the confirmed problems, and when I confirmed those problems and found more he got rather defensive about the state of the article, going as far as engage in personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I classified your response as dickish. I stand by it. I don't have a reprint. I have a first edition. I provided you with a photo of the page showing a 1988 copyright and that it is a first edition. Regardless, that is the book that was used to make the citation, therefore the 1988 date is correct to put in it. Further, I already explained my "splitting the differnce" comment, which you have continued harping on even after I explained that you were taking it out of context and why I made it. But you continue making an issue of it, as if I've continued using it. THAT is part of your dickish behavior. Likewise, your needless comment about needing page numbers was dickish. The citations I put in it HAVE page numbers. I challenged you to show where I failed to do so. Your response was to come here are whine instead of show where I had failed to put a page number in. Seriously, if you're going to whine about my bahvior, at least get it right. Aside from that.......I just don't care enough about this complaint to continue the discussion.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I see, you are trying to blame someone elses failure on me. I cited that book ONCE, for two uses about his birthdate. That citation has a page and has always had a page. Your telling me to include page numbers was totally pointless....and dickish. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including page numbers is not "totally pointless", it helps others verify the information you add to an article using the sources you cite. Including page numbers shows that you've taken the next step, likely read the book and didn't just find the book in a Google book search. Oh and the name calling is unnecessary and you know it.--RadioFan (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say including page numbers was pointless. I said TELLING ME to include them is pointless, since I've always included them and I challenged Ian to show where I had ever failed to include the page number when citing a book. He has tried to make it sound like I didn't include the page number before and that is false. I used the book as a citation once, to validate the birth date. It has always had the page number. Thus, telling me to "include the page number" is pointless, since I've already demonstrated not only the knowledge that it is needed, but have demonstrated that I would do it. Perhaps you missed where I actually took a picture of the copyright page.....which clearly wasn't just from some search. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section that started the discussion, about Norris's childhood, is unsourced, but you insisted to another user that the autobiography covered it ("Apparently you've never read his autobiography"). It doesn't seem likely that page 6 sources all of that information. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't put that passage in the article. I haven't added a citation regarding it. I DID state on the talk page that I'd read it in his autobiography and even explained some of it to the editor who raised it. Since I haven't put it in, nor have I made any edits at all, EVER, to that passage in the article, why are you holding me responsible for it being uncited? Everything I have EVER put in that article has been properly cited. I defy you to show me any addition I've made to the article that wasn't. Further, your whole thing about page 6 shows you aren't paying attention. That is used twice in the article, both times for his date of birth. I never used it anywhere else in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake, didn't understand the "pointless" comment at first. I still contend that the name calling is pointless however.--RadioFan (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You might be right.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 107.21.195.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rind_et_al._controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rind_et_al._controversy&oldid=472640765 the user resorted to calling another user a pedophile, without any justification for it. It is my hope that a formal warning will be issued and if the behavior continues, the user will be blocked from further editing.

Editing history of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rind_et_al._controversy&action=history The comment was on edit 17:27, 22 January 2012‎ Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have 'revdel'd' the edit in question, as it does appear to be a personal attack. IP has disappeared for now, so a block is probably moot. Skier Dude (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can help me. For the past few months, User:Al_Villarruel has been vandalizing random pages in wiki. Most recently a series of changes to the population figures of Eureka, California where previous vandalisms had included putting Eureka in a category of cities with Hispanic majority populations. Both myself and User:Norcalal have reverted these edits which never seemed important enough to involve an administrator or outside party.

During that time, I have left quiet notes encouraging him to contribute effectively to wiki on User_talk:Al_Villarruel, but when I arrived this morning my user page, User:Ellin Beltz , had been totally blanked out, and User:Al_Villarruel wrote this instead:

"fuck the shit of you, eureka is my hometown, and stay out of our business focus on your city like ukiah, los angeles, or fresno, or san francisco, so im going to put it back to 43,000 whether you like it or not

His previous change to my user page read: "i live in eureka, so stop it eureka is the popluation of 43,108, so wikipedia is a free wiki so get out of wikipedia, or i'l come to your house and get you when youre asleep"

Regardless of the threats, I reverted the population of Eureka to the U.S. Census figures which were there when this problem started.

I need help to revert my page to what was useful for me and also to get some administrator help with User:Al_Villarruel. This has never happened to me before and I do not know how to proceed. Thank you.Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the "... when you're asleep" comment at EB's talk page and an admin's notice on AV's talk page saying he would be warned only once before being blocked. Frankly, I don't think a warning is strong enough in this situation. It looks like a believable threat of personal violence. I'm sorry I don't know all the details of the WP:NPA and its usual enforcement, so I'm not complaining about the admin, but just think a serious, believable threat should be dealt with in a very serious decisive manner, e.g. block now, and ask for a complete explanation and apology before reinstating editing privileges. I ask that an admin watch this very closely and take it very seriously. I'll also suggest that EB report this to the local police, just in case. No - I don't think he'll actually follow through, but better safe than sorry. Smallbones (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]