|
 |
- 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.
|
|
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!
Are you in the right place?
Procedure for this page
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 diff's that show the problem. (A guide to creating diff's 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Active alerts
User:Romaioi was identified as a potential sock puppet of Generalmesse, as required User:noclador informed of this and explained the checkuser process on his talk page. The checkuser proved to be negative, although all the other sock puppet suspects proved to be correct. Unfortunately User:Romaioi has taken this extremely personally and in his defence, launched a series of personal attacks against User:noclador. As a result after explaining the checkuser process User:noclador has chosen to disengage with this editor, see [1]. I have attempted to smooth things over but User:Romaioi has seen fit to publish further personal attacks on his talk page. Discussion over the sock puppet accusation have been moved to an archive page User talk:Romaioi/Archive 1. I have urged him to withdraw the personal attacks but he is unrepentant. I can only see this escalating, would someone be able to intervene please. Justin talk 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking through it first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hmmm. So... incorrectly accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, withdrawing from the ongoing discussion of the accusation, then refusing to apologize for making the accusation, all that isn't uncivil, but having a certain amount of justifiable resentment over a false accusation and besmirching of one's character, that's uncivil? Interesting ethical stance.
User:noclador should go hat in hand to User:Romaioi and offer profound and sincere apologies. If things continue afterwards, then there might be a case for incivility, but until then... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm going to wait for the user to return to editing prior to going any further with this - and I don't think that tone is helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Given that I came here with the aim of calming things before it escalated, that was not helpful. Justin talk 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
UNDINDENT Apologies for not having replied sooner - I do not log on every day. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has echoed my sentiments. This issue does not have much to do with Justin. I appreciate what he was trying to do. However, to claim a series of personal attacks by me towards User:noclador is incorrect. All I am guilty of is calling User:noclador a liar. Beyond that, the language in my initial defense was emotive in tone (and I had good reason beyond being accused in the manner in which I was). On the other hand User:noclador delivered several personal attacks on me, and also abused my sincerity. The referring to me as a fanatic, simply for my exercising my right, in accordance with the rules, to present a thorough defense and the continued deletion of my edits represents a large degree of prejudice on my accuser’s part (I know, this statement will be seen by some as a personal attack – but that’s just a deduced conclusion with no personal motive). Now, as I have just learn from Justin's link above:[2], he has acussed me of being a bully in a one sided passage that I see as another manipulation of my words. The reason? I do not know. I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character. He did state that he firmly believed me to be Generalmesse, (as per his statement on Jume 30: you have massively reinforced the suspicion that you are in fact a sock of User:Generalmesse). Regardless, the personal attacks and insults towards me were stronger than anything I dished out in my defense.
So in regard to Justin's position, I appreciate what he has tried to do. I respect him as a result. The last thing I am trying to do is attack him and I am sorry that he feels that way. However, I do feel, respectfully, that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction.
The summary on my user page is not intended to escalate the situation. It’s intention to to be an example of the ethical issue which Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has illustrated with the definitive purpose leaving it there. (I did leave fine print saying that I would delete any further discussion.) Beyond that I have not continued this. I was trying to be sincere and thought it was fair to summarise given all the circumstances. I have even removed names and highlighted my own mistakes (as any reasonable person should in the case of the latter). I do not think I have been unreasonable. But I certainly think that my accuser was. Given the circumstances I believe I should be allowed some grace on the matter.
Moreover, the summary at User talk:Romaioi and my reams of dialogue following, I believe, show evidence that I understand and appreciate the purpose of the investigation. I am all for that sort of thing. Though, had my accuser been more thorough in his investigation, as per my summary etc, I cannot see how it could have been logically concluded that I was a sock puppet in the first place.
I do not think its unreasonable to leave the summary in place. If I remove it, all the negative remarks concerning me, that are elsewhere, will still remain without answer. How is that fair?
Romaioi (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. Unrepentent? I have been apologising to all others involved repeatedly.Romaioi (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- [3] Diff here shows your response to my request to remove the personal attack on your talk page. Noting the reference to abuse of authority I would highlight again that neither of us are administrators, we're just normal editors. There was no abuse of authority, I can understand you might have been upset at being caught up in this but furthering the dispute with a personal attack is not the way to go. Justin talk 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- I pretty much adressed this already. Don't want to rehash it agian. You're claim of "personal attacks" by myself, while not addressing the more severe WQA-style offences against me is not justified, in my opinion. I'll address that issue (again) in my response to Ncmvocalist's suggestion below. Ncmvocalist, sorry for the delay, I just logged in for the first time since Wednesday. I will reply to you below either later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Romaioi (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- There were a few things you said both here, and on your talk page. Can you provide diffs of those "negative comments" that you think aren't going to be removed or modified? We can certainly look into it here, if it's appropriate. If it is, then I think it is best you remove your summary. If it isn't, then we probably can archive the relevant comments, and then we'd need to ask you to archive your summary. I therefore think that we can resolve this dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My second response (and hopefully one of the last on this)
Ok there are a few things I would like and probably a few things I need to re-stress to support why. I apologise for that but I see no other way – there are important ethical issues that should be addressed here. Let’s not forget that I did not continue this beyond my summary. This is taking up time I do not want to spend. I feel it important to defend my reputation and unwarranted that I have been put through all this almost from the point that I started contributing – it has not been very encouraging.
Unfortunately, most of the negative comments are on the sockuppetry pages and as they are part of a broader dialoge, I cannot practically see how they can be deleted. Also, if these comments are deleted then it removes evidence accuser’s behaviour. Most of his claims of vandalism on my part have been undone by other users, so I am satisfied there. But there are couple things:
- The edit summary at [4] is a completely incorrect statement and is misleading. I was doing no such thing. I explained my verified contributions during my sockpuppetry defense. Noclodor’s statement was based on his firm belief that I was Generalmesse. I would like it deleted.
- The content at [5] is sensationalist. I believe it should be expunged. It is a second example of misrepresentative evidence and will lead readers to believe an inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances. Portions of statements have been pulled together from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). The passage at that link is analogous to the very first piece of evidence presented against me at this link, which stated:
Romaioi say: "It is a topic that requires addressing because of the long legacy of English texts to have a largely dismissive, non-factual, non-"NPOV" towards Italian soldiers.", "It’s objective was to point out that Italian soldiers of the era were not cowards, as depicted in too many English texts.", "I am have recently made contributions on Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus etc is because they are topics are not covered very well in English texts - which my language (and what is covered is usually in disparaging/dismissive tones and not based on the facts)." "As a scientist,...", "My skeptisim comes from the tendency of authors of English texts (particularly the older ones) not have done their homework regarding the Itatalian contributions and other minor powers, literally. Further, they tend to be almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement." It is 1:1 what Generalmesse is saying and the claim with the scientist... oh dear, yesterday he wanted to be a published author,... --noclador (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- This “evidence” did not reflect what I was saying at all. This is misprepresentative, manufactured passage. I found it manipulative and baseless. It has a couple of incorrect assertions were also thrown into the mix. The 1:1 comment is also interesting because no equivalent comment of Generalmesse's was ever presented to demonstrate this claim. I am yet to find such a 1:1 passage by User: Generalmesse. The snipe about me wanting to be a published author was also interesting because I never ever made such a statement. (But I later clarified that I actually was one, which led to another snide remark.) I found it all to be rather sensationalist, the kind of misinformation that you find in tabloids.
-
- There was further “evidence” provided, just below the above “evidence” at this link, to claim that I was being deceptive in my use of IP’s. Yet on the very same page in question I declared what I was doing – yet this was selectively ignored in the evidence presented to ‘nail’ me. (I addressed this in my defence).
-
- Also presented as “evidence” against me at this link was a list of a series the pages I had supposedly edited. Interestingly, as I demonstrated in my “fanatical” defense, I hadn’t edited/touched most of them.
-
- This all indicated to me a deliberate attempt to deceive. It was at this point, and for all this that I claimed that Noclador was lying. At the time, I found all this “evidence” to be highly deceptive and, in light of the left field nature of the accusations, the lack of consideration of verifiable citations that I presented with my edits, and the fact that I was not directed to the correct evidence page, to be indicative of malicious intent. So yes, I found it to be a “character assassination,” a “tar and feather show” and a “witch hunt”.
-
- As a side note, if a series of incorrect assertions are made on no verifiable basis, and some relevant information is conveniently left out, is this not logically deduced to be a lie? That is what I deduced.
-
- Let me ask you all this. You are on the receiving end of an accusation such as sock puppetry (in this case). You were directed to an evidence page that made no reference to you. Then you found that the evidence being stacked up against you elsewhere was factually incorrect. On top of all that you then had to cop insults, personal attacks and snide comments along the way. What would you be thinking?
-
-
-
- Let me recap some examples of the kind of personal attacks I have been the recipient of here:
- - Implying that I am a fanatic at (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove) – because I defended myself. What I did was present a through breakdown, as per my right within the scope of the rules.
- - Sarcastic assertion at [6] that I am User: Brunodam and have moved from Italy to Australia.
- - Accusation of being a bully at [7] – much more of a personal attack than me claiming him to have lied.
- - Snide comments about me wanting to be a publish author (see quote above, from this link - a comment I never made).
- - Snide comments about me actually being a publish author – made later at [8].
- - Deletion of my edits and accusations of vandalism and “not having good faith” against me ([9], [10]) – only to be undone by other users, who demonstrated the appropriate reason.
-
- No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology). Yet at [11], he says “and so on” to imply that I said so much more (something he has not verified). (I will address the legal action thing below).
-
-
-
-
- Pertaining to my reference to lawyers at this link (I never said legal action). I feel this needs addressing. I explained elsewhere that I had a flu and that state of mind was not entirely composed as a result was more emotive than usual. Being new (and naïve) to Wikipedia, I thought that the only way to prove I was not a sock would be to disclose my identity. Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being been tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern, at the time, that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility.
-
- The above exemplified what has been said and done to me. What I said was he was lying. Anyone else notice the disparity? The claim of lying is called a REPEATED personal attack – and that’s all that keeps getting thrown back at me. Nothing was ever acknowledged in regards to the insults thrown at me. Does anyone else not see this as a double standard? (Please not that I am not attacking anyone with this statement - just highlighting the disparity.) To me it means my accuser has carte blanche approval to do as he pleases.
-
- This WQA really should not be about me.
-
- I am sorry to those who do not agree, but I see this all, particularly the disparate weight of what was done to me, a “new” user, versus my calling someone a liar, as a rather sensational double standard. Persistent claims that only refer to me as having made personal attacks are incorrect and give the wrong impression of the circumstances. I am not trying to escalate the situation. I do not need to calm down. I am very calm. My summary was designed to highlight this ethical issue.
-
- Hopefully, after all that I have demonstrated here, it will be clear that the content at [12] should be deleted. Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour.
-
- Alternatively (preferrably?): I would like a statement inserted there ([13]) by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored. There should probably be a reference to this WPQ page.
-
-
-
- I was tempted to make a comment to that effect there and provide a link to this page (at least for the sake of User:Sticky Parkin having direct access to relevant information so as to enable an informed decision), but am willing for this WPQ process to sort itself out first.
- I would like to see behavioral rules enforced for those making sockpuppetry accusations or any other accusations. I would also like to see it stressed ( on the sockpuppetry page), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for such uncivil behaviour.
- If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned. At the very least, it has been demonstrated that his research was not sufficiently thorough.
-
-
- Further, at [14] he has made an edit, deleting a citation from another user (which albeit may have been included incorrectly), and not supported his modified statement with a verifiable citation. Nor is there and edit summary to support it. This is, coincidently, the same type of editing that he used as evidence in his sockpuppetry investigations.
- I would like to keep the following on my user page:
-
-
- On 25 June 2008, an accusation was made that User: Romaioi, a relatively new user, was a sock puppet. Defense was presented by User: Romaioi in accordance with the rules outlined to him. On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown (at link1 & link2) that User: Romaioi was not a sock puppet. Further, this is clear evidence that all assumptions made about User: Romaioi have been wrong. It is hoped that whoever wishes to raise such accusations against anyone in future will be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line. No acknowledgement of his error has been made by the accuser.
- Surely that cannot be considered a personal attack. A possible alternative is that I archive what is currently there.
- Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it. Alternatively, simply state that the WPQ action, pertaining to me, is unwarranted.
-
-
- Because I feel this page will further serve to drag my name through the mud, otherwise.
- And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me.
Romaioi (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a long standing debate between User:Carlosguitar, myself, and a couple of other editors at the Parkour article. It is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour.
Throughout this discussion I have felt constantly baited and bullied by Carlosguitar in a passive aggressive way. You can make up your mind for yourself from the links I provide below, but I feel that I have been extraordinarily patient. A neutral third party also expressed similar opinions.(here) At every stage I have attempted to compromise, for instance, letting go a point in the interests of peace when suggested by the neutral third party. Carlosguitar then responded hostilely to the neutral editor.[15] (at the bottom)
I feel that Carlosguitar consistently used the letter of the law rather than it’s speared to try to force his views. For instance repeatedly trying to use WP:WEIGHT to justify removing the criticism section from the article (you will note that this was explicitly rejected by the neutral opinion).
He has made several accusation of being personally attacked. here for instance (4th and 5th paragraph down). Finally just recently he accused me of personally attacking him, when I got fed up with what I see as a particularly bizarre piece of logic[16], and expressed my opinion that he was WP:LAWYER. (Which I can back up with ample evidence if need be). He has since used this alleged attack as a weapon, while adopting an extremely insulting condescending tone with me.[17][18]
There are many other problem posts.
The full discussion can be found:
I’m not allways perfect on talk pages, but am I’m completely unjustified in feeling attack and disrespected by these messages? Thanks for your impartial opinion. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, once something has gone to Mediation, it is already beyond what can be done here at Wikiquette Alerts. Heh, in fact when there are problems that can't be solved here, it's not uncommon for someone to say, "Try taking it to mediation." :)
- Since Vassyana has been mediating, I will ask him/her if there's any suggestion for what we can do here, but otherwise I am inclined to just refer it back there. Sorry. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Jaysweet has summed up what happens (or is likely to happen) generally. However, there are a couple of things said by the both of them that have me concerned, at all points of this dispute so far (including at mediation). I honestly think S.dedalus & Carlosguitar, both, need to avoid the article (and each other). Both of you have said some things that are problematic, and are at the point where no amount of discussion or edits concerning this matter (between the both of you) will be helpful at the moment. After a period of time, a week maybe, or once a formal mediation request is accepted, you could resume. Formal mediation is definitely a good idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If this is a generally supported opinion, I will voluntarily leave the article and discussion for whatever amount of time seems appropriate. In fact I have taken several breaks from the discussion due to frustration before. So that I can improve in the future, which of my comments do you feel are problematic Ncmvocalist? --S.dedalus (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I should've been clearer; problematic in resolving the dispute. Comments like 'i do not appreciate your depracating tone' by you or 'i don't appreciate your accusations of owning, disrupting and trolling' by carlosguitar should probably be left to user talk pages. Replying to each of those comments while discussing content on an article talk page is not going to keep discussion focussed on resolving the content dispute. While I do understand that things get heated during a dispute, sometimes, it's unavoidable that you'll need cool-down breaks so that the dispute isn't prolonged unnecessarily or ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I just realized Carlosguitar was never notified of this thread. I have now done so.
Vassyana replied to me and suggested we continue the discussion here, to see if we can't work something out. The mediation discussion is frankly too long for me to have time to read the entire thing, and it is hard to comment on specifics without the full context. However, I will say this: While I don't see any horribly egregious civility problems, both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other. And just in general, you both seem really pissed ;) Which is only natural, I suppose (and in fact Vassyana commented that in some ways, this sort of bickering is "par for the course" in a topic on which both editors feel so strongly) but it doesn't really help anyone come to a better conclusion.
I would basically echo what Ncmvocalist said: Both sides would benefit from taking a deep breath/taking a step back/having a nice cup of tea. Vassyana is a good mediator, and will not be fooled by trickery or gaming the system -- so if you think the other side is engaging in shennanigans like that, so what? It won't work. The most effective way to make your case is to keep calm, state your position clearly, answer any questions the mediator might have, and try to keep a professional demeanor. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Carlosguitar was notified here.[19] --S.dedalus (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right, I was checking the Talk page. Well, it can't hurt to ping him in both places I 'spose :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, and thank you for your incite. I would say that “both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other” is a pretty accurate way to put it. :) I’m also reassured that Vassyana sees this level of disagreement frequently. It’s unfortunate that more editors are not involved in the discussion, because I think with more input, consensus could have been reached long ago. I’m be going on a short vacation this weekend, which will give me a breather from this discussion I suppose, and perhaps I’ll return with a new approach. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been long-running problems over this SPA, and now this - using a Talk page as a venue for an extended personal attack and breach of WP:AGF.
Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have notified the user of this thread and advised them that the section in question may run afoul of WP:UP#NOT, entry #9. I'd like to see what his/her response is before proceeding. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- However clearly ill-informed he may be in terms of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms, I don't think the rant on his page is quite a personal attack. But I do think this is more RFC material, possibly with multiple conduct issues (but even then, you'd need to have diffs of conduct problems like edit-warring - that talk page comment on its own would probably be insufficient). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm beginning to doubt whether there will be a response so I'm tempted to tag this as stuck...but it's still very early - will give it a bit more time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- He replied to me today and said he wants another day to think over what I said. So probably Wednesday night we can make a decision on how to close this. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Jaysweet; I was apparently successful in the COI Number 1 discussion, and later, Gordonofcartoon started COI number 2 with a week or two of more than 5000 words of incessant criticism from him and WhatamIdoing here [20] They just kept going relentlessly here [21] and from 10:15 on 20-3-08 here [22]
- The volume and numerical number of tactics was so enormous that I decided to sit back and watch, and later presented my response here at 04:16 on 24-5-08 [23], and then Gordonofcartoon dismissed my 2500 word response 8 hours later with the words “Please cut this readable length” here [24], and they continued incessantly down the discussion page from the same day here [25] and added another 7 topics of criticism. I was considering which ones to deal with on a priority basis, and in due course took my final response to the COI page but was 15 minutes late. The decision had been made without me being there.
- Please advise me if I have 8 hours, or 2 weeks to respond here, so that I can time things better in this new policy matter (how many policies are there in wikipedia?) In the meantime I will add some more later to dayPosturewriter (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewrtier
-
-
-
-
- Jaysweet; I have responded to your question on my User talk page as forecast earlier today, and will respond further, but would appreciate a time frame. ThankyouPosturewriter (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
-
-
-
-
-
- Given the obfuscating verbiage thrown at the topic [26], with an excessive proposed time frame - "I will then consider my response in due course (in the next 2 to 4 weeks preferably" - I'm of the strong opinion that we're being jerked around here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Gordonofcartoon; I don’t think it is appropriate for you to be acting as a referee on a matter in which you are part of the dispute; re your non - neutral point of view, and your obvious conflict of interestPosturewriter (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
- Quit Wikilawyering. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can comment here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jaysweet and Ncmvocalist; Please understand that I spent two hours yesterday providing several different responses to several different matters because of the ambiguity of the situation where I got the impression that a decision was to be made by you within 8 hours. I was not obfuscating (Gordonofcartoons words), but gave several clear answers to multiple criticisms that were designed to be obfuscating in an attempt to confuse me (and you, the referees). My reasons for requiring a time frame were related to previous experience where I have prepared responses to matters which were decided before I posted them. Decisions have also been ambiguous. re; the COI cases did not end with a final clear statement of outcome. I am asking you how long this new matter takes so that I can plan a response in a day, or a week, or a month etc. I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can’t say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another. I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don’t wish to change it I will leave it there. Posturewriter (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
-
- I probably should have been more clear when I said "make a decision on how to close this." I had assumed that either you would graciously choose to remove the section in question from your Talk page, or else you would unambiguously tell us to piss off, in which case I would suggest possible follow-up options to GoC if he wanted to pursue the issue. I suppose a compromise was also possible.
- But what really happened is that the two of you generated a whole lot of text :D Partially, you are trying to convince us that what you say on your Talk page is accurate -- which is not really the point. Accurate negative stuff about another user doesn't belong on your talk page, unless it is temporary, e.g. if you were preparing to file a user conduct RfC or take a case to WP:ANI or something.
- Ncmvocalist suggested as a possible compromise that we explore the possibility of striking negative commentary about you that has appeared elsewhere, as a show of good will if you remove this section. I can't guarantee anything (generally talk page archives are not modified, but if the involved parties agreed, it is not out of the question) but would you at least be amenable to this possibility? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist suggested ...
- Where was that suggested? I'm not sure that's appropriate. If there's negative commentary about Posturewriter elsewhere that's untrue and/or in breach of policy, it should be dealt with anyway, so no need for a deal.
- Why should we have to placate an editor who has posted inappropriate material - including bad faith assumptions and unproven accusations of sockpuppetry - and whose agenda has repeatedly been assessed as tendentious from the word go? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, my fault, I was thinking of a different WQA where an editor was falsely accused of sockpuppetry, and then subsequently put up an attack page about his accusers. His argument was that all of the false accusations of sockpuppetry were still floating around and it was unfair for those to remain but for his rebuttal to be removed, so Ncm suggested removing all of it as a compromise. Totally different case, and you're right that that suggestion wouldn't work here. My fault.
- Uh so.... hrm. Unfortunately, the method for tackling these sorts of user pages, where they aren't quite attack pages, but they certainlty don't foster good will, has not really been hammered out. I can think of at least two or three ongoing cases right now...
- How would you feel if Posturewriter moved it to a subpage? Would that still be unacceptable? (It's okay if it is, I'm just trying to find a compromise first because right now enforcement on this sort of thing is just not really happening, I'm afraid...) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Jaysweet; Have you noticed how Gordonofcartoon creates the image that I am causing trouble for a lot of editors, when 99% of criticism is coming from, or incited by him and WhatamIdoing, as here [27], and here [28]. Have you also considered how he is trying to make your group look. He comes asking for help, and when you start to mediate he sidles next to you and acts as if he thinks that you are his toadies, who should routinely move to the back seat while he takes control of the referee process as a recalcitrant dictator. That is the impression he gives me, and presumably other readers - what do you think? Also I will be happy for your group to referee as NPOV’s, and would like a time frame of next Wednesday for my first response, and the following Wednesday for my final comments so you can decide. I don’t see any urgency in taking it further before then. Posturewriter (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
A Link to the Past has been continually rude and blatant towards others and biting newcomers despite being treated kindly. Specifically taking edits to Talk:List of Wii games personally and undoing any major changes made by others while having conducted his own un-discussed changes in the past. He will not change his attitude despite being told to many times by myself and others (even newcomers). Help would be appreciated. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide diffs? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is more about his attitude than his edits, do you want me to link to specific posts he's made that I feel are out of line? Including the majority of Talk:List of Wii games, he has repeatedly bitten other editors for making mistakes (Keep scrolling down on that link) and acted condescending towards me personally for attempting to calm him down. Otherwise, flipping through his contribs should suffice.
-
- On the List of Wii games, his story changes each time he fires up. First his complaints were that it lacked specific dates for Australian releases, then he removed all other dates repeatedly and without discussion other than passing remarks in the edit summery ([29][30][31][32]), they were returned by me and other editors who saw this as either the wrong way to handle things ([33][34][35][36]). Then he complained that the article was too big, so the article was split into three ([37][38][39][40]). Sadly this WP:BOLD action was reverted with an incorrect assumption of the events surrounding it and Link's defense to this was "combined" the articles together were larger than the original article by itself (Which is not how Wikipedia regards article size). The discussion process for how to handle the article is moving along (And it's been a done deal between many of us for a while now), however he continues to talk down to everyone with a differing opinion and will not cooperate with the group. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, after closer examination (particularly on the article talk page), I can see those problems. I'll first notify the editor of this WQA. Btw, have you considered filing an Article RFC or trying mediation per WP:DR? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, it's difficult to discern the difference between WP:DR and here. And the issue was more with his attitude, not the article. I have put requests for comment on the decision to split the article on the talk pages of the WikiProjects the article belongs to though. Thank you for your help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- For now, I want to see his response to your concerns here first. And yes, this is a step in WP:DR, but we stick more to conduct issues and try to avoid content issues. (At the moment, I'm thinking both are linked quite a bit in this dispute, and if the content issues were resolved, it'd be less of a problem...but that isn't my final view.) Mediation deals more exclusively with content disputes, and sometimes, ideally, the manner of conduct of the parties changes during those proceedings, and the matter becomes resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which is why I'm asking for help regarding his conduct. We've enough no-nonsense Admins in the Video games WikiProject to handle any edit disputes. I agree that the bulk of his friction should go away once the article edits are said and done but I've seen him go off half-cocked on other things before. He's... passionate, I just wish he'd extend that energy into working with everyone else instead of against. Thanks again for the help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
89.1.240.199
[41]. Could be related to User talk:71.53.113.13, the only place I've said anything recently that I can remotely imagine ticking someone off. Anyway, as the target of the incivility, I'm not the one to give a warning. - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Probably better to pass it to WP:SSP or to a checkuser on that issue, but I've warned the 89 ip about personal attacks. Leave an update if the personal attacks or incivility continues. And don't worry about secure diffs like that in the future - ones like this are fine. Thanks for being concise! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I pretty much always log in secure, so if I grab a URL, it's pretty much always the secure one. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you'd gone to some trouble to get those diffs - and they can take a while to load. But in that case, no worries. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks. I just got a out of the blue, and pretty rude, message from 757 Sports Historian regarding an edit I made about 3 months ago (view it here). The message was pretty agressive and uncivil, and figured someone other than me maybe dropping him a line to discuss civility may be good, especially since he's a pretty new editor. I am more than willing to discuss his issues with my edit, but only in a civil manner. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah quit erasing me and other users "correct" edits and there won't be an issue. I think my message to you was very straight to the point and civil.757 Sports Historian (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've warned the subject of this WQA. If content issues persist, you can try Article RFC or mediation per WP:DR. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This user and I have been involved in a protracted debate ranging all over the place (to include 2 RfCs, an MfD, 3 ANIs, too many talk pages to count, etc.), but things do not appear to be improving (see User_talk:Rlevse#Query). One Admin has suggested arbitration as the likeliest venue. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 06:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
|
