From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page. Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate. That's usually the best solution for everyone involved. If problems continue, then there are further options as described in this dispute resolution process link and the info-box to the right. For more information, click any of those links, or start with this article: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

IMPORTANT: Read the instructions before posting your alert. Review the section titled Procedure for this page, immediately following the table of contents below.

Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out, and in particular if you have been helped by this page, please return the favor by offering your advice on other incident reports. That's not a requirement for posting your report, but it's a good idea, and your help would be much appreciated. Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures. Wikiquette in a way is the basis of what allows the community to work smoothly together, so those are valuable skills to develop for those who like to edit Wikipedia. Thanks!

[edit] Are you in the right place?

• To report obvious vandalism please use administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Violations of the three revert rule should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
• If you feel an article needs protecting against rampant vandalism or a persistent edit war, please use requests for page protection.
• If you believe that one or more editors are sock puppets, please use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and helpful advice is at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors
• For all other incidents that may require administrator intervention, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, an alternative to posting to this page is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor, you can use Wikipedia:Editor assistance.

[edit] Procedure for this page

[edit] Instructions for users posting alerts

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers here are volunteers. It may take some time to receive a response. If the problem is continuing and you have not received any results from your posting here, return to this page and post an update to your original statement of the problem.

If you have not received help and the problem becomes urgent or is escalating, refer to the list above and post your report to one of the Administrator Notice boards instead. In that case, please edit your post on this page to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

• Post your alert to the bottom of the page — add a new sub-heading with a short description of the issue (click here to start a new section).
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page and instead supply a simple direct explanation of the problem, along with the user-ids of the Users involved and a link or two to the page where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs is here).
• Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could cause the problem to escalate.
• Sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were—editors responding to posts here will review the discussions where they are occuring. They may post notes there, however in situations that involve mulitple pages, reviewing editors will post their comments here, so watch this page and refer back to your entry when you notice that a comment has been posted.

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

[edit] Instructions for editors responding to alerts

All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on this page. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated.

To help with this page, place it on your watchlist so you can see when new alerts are posted. Or you quickly scan the page for items here that are either marked with the WQA "Work in progress" message-box or have no status indicator at all. If an alert does not have any kind of response yet, it is open and needs attention.

Work in Progress - comments welcome(Optional comment and/or signature)

• Review open items and when you find one that you feel you can help with, visit the relevant pages and observe the situation. When you are ready, enter your helpful comments and strive to improve the situation, at the disputed page if appropriate, or on this page if that seems better.
• Enter a note on this page in the relevant section to indicate that you have joined the process. Add the {{WQA in progress}} template (as displayed above) to the top of the report item's sub-section.
• If there is no action needed, or after action has produced results, enter a note on this page to describe the results, including constructive comments on about any Wikiquette breaches you may have seen.
• When the issue is ready to be closed, follow the steps below.

Closing the reports:

Resolved. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• If you believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties, close the item by entering the {{resolved}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Stuck. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• If on the other hand, after you have done your best you find that the problems are continuing and you feel there is nothing further that you can do, then consider what the best next step for the parties would be. State your suggestions on the relevant talk page, and also in a comment here, what dispute resolution process you recommend, and include a link for them to follow. To close the item here, enter the {{stuck}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Stale. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {{stale}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere(Optional comment and/or signature)

• For items that should not have been posted to WQA at all -- blatant vandalism, accusations of sock puppetry, a request for adminship, etc., please refer the original poster to the proper forum, and place the {{NWQA}} template under the section heading.

The five templates may optionally include your signature and additional summary comments by including them after a pipe, for example, {{resolved|User has been reminded about [[WP:NPA]] ~~~~}}, or {{stuck|Referred to [[WP:ANI]].}} This automatically formats the included text as small text displayed next to the template. For detailed instructions on using the templates, click any of the template name links above. Please note that using a timestamped signature with one of these templates will delay the automatic bot archival of that alert to 14 days from when you sign the template.

[edit] Archiving alerts

Reports are considered closed and automatically archived by bot (whether tagged or not using any of the templates described above) one week after the last timestamped signature in the discussion. Reports marked resolved, stuck, or NWQA (as above) may be manually archived sooner than this. Links to the archive pages can be found in the Archive Box next to the Table of Contents above.

[edit] Active alerts

[edit] Discussion in Minoan Eruption

There is an editor User:Orangemarlin who is making unnecessarily confrontational comments in [[1]]. This person seems to adopt this tone a lot but he seems to me to be crossing the line here.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you're the disruptive editor, I find this amusing. You're trying to force editors away from consensus. And you conveniently and rudely forgot to drop a note on my user talk. But anyways this is a ridiculous POV pushing that's truly disruptive. We should move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm working out how to use this. "Disruptive editor"? I have not edited the article at all as you well know because you have been scanning my edit history. I am meerly an observer who has taken part in a discussion on a WP policy where you turn abusive and say you will only "get off my case" if I leave the discussion. I suspect an investigation of your edits will show that most of your editing time is involved in unpleasant correspondence of this sort.--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Step 1 of dispute resolution is to discuss directly with the other user on their Talkpage. I've scanned OrangeMarlin's page and see a discussion on this specific topic, but with no input from AssegaiAli. Now that discussion appears to have started, go back and continue it. OM has had past discussions about tone, but I will warn that much of it has occurred after being attacked/goaded first. I'm not saying that's the case this time, just suggesting that one should keep it in mind...♪BMWΔ 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AssegaiAli did contribute to the discussion of the issue on Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention. The discussion seems to have ended being split between the article and user talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention, I'm seeing escalating rhetoric from both parties, but User:Orangemarlin does appear to be pushing the envelope. Gerardw (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now also reviewed Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention. AssegaiAli has been civil and patient. I agree that Orangemarlin is being unnecessarily rude and disruptive. He was also involved with an inappropriate report on a username today, and has used inappropriate tone/language with other editors too. I recommend Orangemarlin takes some time to reconsider his language, tone, and general behaviour, and to tone it all down. --HighKing (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What he heck does filing a uaa have to do with this WQA? Many people I expect feel that the specific username is, indeed, inappropriate. OrangeMarlin has appeared here and ANI a number of times, and yes, perhaps that shows a pattern. If you have a complaint against a specific editor, deal with it on their talkpage first, but make sure you're not building mountains out of proverbial molehills. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@BMW, there is certainly no need to respond so aggressively and with a confrontational tone. This WQA is about OrangeMarlin making unnecessarily confrontational comments and it is often wise an appropriate to look at the short term edit history of the editors involved. From a quick perusal, there are many examples that show that OrangeMarlin uses inappropriate language and tone, and appears unable to keep it in check. The UUA was current, and it was pointed out that there was a potential misuse of the UUA process since OrangeMarlin was apparently in dispute with the other editor. All of this is pertinent to get a fuller picture of OrangeMarlins behaviour in relation to this incident. It appears that this incident, this WQA, is not an isolated incident. I was unable to find evidence that OrangeMarlin had been "goaded" first, and you insinuation was unhelpful. For that reason, I made a recommendation above which I believe is reasonable. --HighKing (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee HighKing, come down off thy HighHorse for a moment and please AGF a little. My points (when read clearly) were: 1) that many would not disagree with the username Die4Dixie being an inappropriate username, and that 2) as such, a UAA filing is not necessarily a misconduct or proof of personality, and 3) that since OM has been both here and and ANI more than once, further actions would warrant RfC and not this forum. My additional point was that the complainant did NOT try and deal directly with perceived incivility directly with the "offending" user first: that is always the first step in the Wikipedia community. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Distortions/slander by User:ESkog and User:Hammersoft

Unarchived per user request I went to WQA for help Gerardw (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both have accused me of canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos (see the bottom of the page...it's a long read) when I have indeed done no such thing. Thoughts on how to handle it? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the accusations, and please notify the two users you have complaints against about this Wikiquette entry to better enable discussion and resolution. Theseeker4 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[2] [3]. Notifying users. My question really is just a request for feedback as to what others recommend I should do. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to chase this discussion to every corner of Wikipedia. Please stop looking for personal attacks where there are none. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why I didn't talk to them first. I was wondering what to do about them before taking any affirmative action. Specifically, ESKog has accused me of canvassing twice "re-canvassing".

ESKog, I have not asked you to discuss anything about that here in any way and was doing what another respected user requested. I never said it was a personal attack, but a distortion (which I requested be retracted) and/or slander (please understand there is a difference). I am going to bed now, but will respond as soon as I can in the near future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing evidence of civility violation by User:ESkog and User:Hammersoft. Remember WP:AGF I recommend you continue discussion on appropriate talk page. Gerardw (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unfounded accusations of violations of WP:CANVASS aren't incivil? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01 did canvass this poll but I think he did so accidently and probably doesn't realise he did. He notified all previous participants in the RFC (myself included and I am diametrically opposed to his opinion on the issue in question) which is a reasonable thing to do. What he likely did not realise is that many of the previous participants had come along only because another editor had canvassed them and the relevant Wikiproject. By notifying previous particpants, BQZip01 inadvertently repeated this previous attempt to skew the RFC. I don't think he can reasonably be held responsible for this effect. CIreland (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you look at the diff I did not say BQZ violated WP:CANVASS. Canvas has neutral connotations as well as negative ones, and none of what I said made accusations of violating anything. I simply said that re-voting on something where voting had already taken place is counter productive. It is counter productive. That's not a personal attack. I stand by my words. Quoting WP:CANVASS, "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions" That's what BQZ did, and calling it canvassing is entirely appropriate, given that even the guideline itself shows there are neutral connotations to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But you did so implying it was improper to do so and the opinions of those "canvassed" were somehow tainted or improper to the discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More examples

[4] Implication being that those who do not agree with him are insane Disparaging others' views because of their affiliation(s), Distorting others' opinions, belittling further discussion, claim of consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists, another claim of consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists, yet another claim of consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists, wasting time by requesting discussion on a page and then refusing to discuss, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs)

As noted, WP:CANVASS has neutral and negative implications. As already noted, the complainant may have inadvertantly canvassed, and it was brought to their attention instead of taking it to WP:ANI; that's mighty neighbourly of the other editors, and is very much the way Wikipedia should work (politely advising of an issue, rather than running to the "police"). The original complainant's stated lack of desire to bring the issue to WQA in lieu of discussing with the other editors is truly an appalling violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. We all edit collaboratively. The above addition of the "shotgun" effect (throwing a bunch of things out there, hoping one will hit the target) is unfortunate. I will agree, that let's say only 3 people are editing an article, and 2 of those 3 say "no", it's not quite "officially" consensus because of !vote, but it's enough consensus in most cases (4 !votes vs 2 !votes is a different story). This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Get used to collaborating. Get used to having your edits challenged. This is how it works. On top of that, as "slander" implies a legal tone, I would highly recommend those accusations be struck as per WP:NLT, as that is a serious violation of policy and can be immediately dealt with under WP:ANI. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did request those users on numerous occasions to retract their comments and have discussed with them ad nauseum. I brought it to WQA for advice as to what should be done about what I perceive to be a problem. My desire not to involve them was to simply answer my original query in order not to escalate the situation further, not to exclude them from discussion. I never stated a desire to bring it to WQA instead of talking with other editors (I tried discussion first, not last) or working collaboratively.

The above "shotgun", as you called it, was an attempt to show that uncivil behavior has continued (showing that the original problem has not gone away).

As for consensus, the problem I have with it is that on this page (now over 300KB in size), seven editors in the general dissenting minority with regards to the original post discussed for three days and decided to do things a certain way. These two users viewed that 3-day discussion (hidden in the middle of a section that wasn't labeled with anything close to what the discussion was about) as "consensus" to do as they pleased. In reality, a score of people disagree with that decision. All I have ever stated about that is that there is not consensus to do what they stated. Please note I am not saying there is consensus to oppose their decision either. But to make an edit and claim justification for it by saying their is consensus is misleading. To label anyone who opposes their opinion as "starting an edit war" is uncivil, inaccurate, misleading, etc.

I've had two articles on which I've worked be featured on the main page...I am well aware of the reality of having my edits challenged on Wikipedia. On this page alone, I disagree with about 20-40 editors on various subjects. I have no issue with my views being challenged whatsoever, but to belittle others with whom you disagree is out of line. That is the behavior I wish to challenge.

"Slander" has many meanings only one of which is a legal term. There is no attempt at a legal challenge or threat in this case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User: Ibaranoff24

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereReliable Souces Noticeboard for content dispute being escalated by complainant

User:Ibaranoff24 has acted in an uncivil manner towards me on the Mudvayne talk page and edit summaries. He has used unnecessary intimidating language (“You have been warned about this”, when I am simply inserting sources [5]), accused me on multiple occasions of “strongarming my POV” (when again all I’m doing is adding sources), here [6] here [7] and here [8], and claimed that I “lie to justify flagrant attempts to force your own opinion” here [9]. Prophaniti (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you learned about escalating content disputes. This arguement is about Reliable Sources. You want to determine Reliable sources, you take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please refrain from escalating disputes needlessly to the point where edit-warring begins. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about content dispute though: whether the content is acceptable or not is irrelevant, the problem is Ibaranoff's behaviour. Prophaniti (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is about the content dispute. Read my userpage ... ABC. Fix the content dispute, and neither of you will be escalating needlessly, and will spare us the WP:DRAMA.(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track)

No, it is not about content. Saying to one user "You lie to justify flagrant attempts to force your own opinion" is not acceptable behaviour. Period. The content is irrelevant. It is not good enough to say "If there's any content involved at all, then users can act however they choose". And if you're worried about causing drama, I suggest taking it up with Ibaranoff, since he is the user responsible for it. Prophaniti (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti, the problem here is everything can be traced to edit warring. Changes have been made, then reverted, starting a reversion war between (primarily) you and Ibaranoff, both of whom it would seem from the article history have violated policy against edit warring. The way to discuss and determine consensus if you and another user disagree on a particular addition/source/etc. is not to keep reverting each other. The way to work around it is to post a comment/question/etc. in the talk page, and wait for input. It may take days, but Wikipedia has no deadline. Let the revision you disagree with stand and get others to discuss it. Even if the editor you are having a disagreement with won't discuss it, if you build a consensus with other users, act on that consensus and it is reverted, you are justified to take the matter to the next step, to report the editor editing against consensus. There is no clear consensus at the talk page in question that I can see to support either view, which means no more contentious edits should be made until more imput and some agreement is reached. While Ibaranoff may have made comments that are not entirely civil, in the heat of an edit war (edit wars take two or more to participat) you are involved in, his comments are explicable, though I wouldn't say justifiable. The main issue here is the content dispute, NOT his comments, as his comments are directly in response to you two edit warring. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Content is involved, but I should think 90% of all disputes and wikiquette breaches are connected with content disputes. The point is, regardless of the content (so long as it isn't outright vandalism, which it's plain to see it isn't), he has broken wikiquette. He has lashed out and taken a very hostile, aggressive tone. This is not acceptable. I'm not here to solve the dispute: as it happens, I have taken it to the talk page. I have been discussing it. Ibaranoff is refusing to budge, so I have taken the content dispute to the appropriate noticeboard. That is the step I have taken to deal with the content. This is nothing to do with that. I'll say it again: I have not come here to solve the dispute. I have come here because Ibaranoff has acted badly, and me telling him that will only be dismissed. If we have wikiquette guidelines, then you have a responsibility to uphold and remind people of them.

I'll put it in the simplest terms: Ibaranoff has acted against wikiquette guidelines. That's the end of it. If you will refuse to do anything, then you are also saying that users can say whatever they please with absolutely no fear of repercussions. Prophaniti (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would simply suggest that you read the top of the Wikiquette page, particularly the part about this being "a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." You have now had two uninvolved users explain to you that there is no major civility issue here, it is an edit warring and content dispute issue. You disagree, that is fine, that is your right, but nothing more can or will come from this noticeboard. Again, this is an informal forum for advice, not a request for administrator intervention, arbitration, etc. I suggest you follow Bwilkins' and my advice and step back, cool down, refrain from edit warring even if you are in the right, and take any other disputes to the appropriate forums or noticeboards. That is my opinion, you can agree or disagree, but as the Wikiquette page says, this board is for advice. Good luck. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the issue to the appropriate noticeboard, and the talk page. I have engaged in discussion, and taken the proper steps to resolving the dispute. As I said, I did not come here in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I came here to report that a user was ignoring wikiquette. This page does say it's for advice, but it's also for reporting users. I understand and acknowledge it is not the place from which binding warnings or any such with arise, and I have never sought that. I all I sought was someone to remind Ibaranoff that he was breaking the rules and being unnecessarily hostile, because any such reminders from me would simply be ignored. I came here because I am being insulted. It's apparent that this doesn't matter, and I shall bear in mind for future reference that users may insult other users as much as they wish. Thank you for clearing that up. It really probably would be worth adding somewhere on wikipedia that insults and slurs on other users will go ignored. Prophaniti (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration at this point, but please do not go away from this thinking that it is a good idea to claim a precedent has been set and that you can use insults and slurs against other editors. That is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and - like incivility and personal attacks - expressly against policy. Please do pursue other steps in our dispute resolution guidelines and try to determine consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what I have tried to show is the root cause of the problem - antecedent - behavior - consequence. While not excusing behavior, it explains behaviour. On top of that, I disagree that the comments that have been made were truly uncivil. Slightly impolite due to frustration, perhaps, but none worthy as being called a violation of WP:CIVIL. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Two points. First, this is an aggressively trivial content issue that is hardly worth the emotional engagement that has been spawned. Everyone should calm down. Second and more importantly, this is clearly not a civility violation. It is itself a breach of wiki decorum to accuse of other editors of incivility when that is not the case. I will assume good faith here and accept that the editor who brought this complaint genuinely believed that there was a breach of civility. However, as several uninvolved editors have observed, it is simply not the case. Continued insistence risks becoming willfully vexatious bordering on disruptive. I suggest this be archived and the matter be allowed to work itself out on the talk page of the article in question. Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the opinion of the third party editors. Disagreement is not inherently uncivil. Both parties showed Good faith at the beginning and got carried away with the edit war without achieving consensus or requesting assistance from other editors. Prophaniti it is good that you asked for assistance. This is just not the assistance you need. Gerardw (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)